Cartoon of the Day: Ethanol
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Thursday, August 02, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- More on Why So Many Empty Olympic Seats
- 11 Most Common Grammar Mistakes
- Quotation of the Day: Sports Socialism
- America's Energy Jackpot: Industrial Natural Gas P...
- Happy100th Birthday Milton Friedman!
- U.S. Restaurants Show Expansion Again in June
- America's Energy Revolution Has Brought Lower Real...
- Creative Destruction: Acoustic Pianos, R.I.P.
- Obama Opposes Min. Wage Increase in Samoa Due to H...
- Chicago Fed: Midwest Manufacturing Grew 11% Over L...
97 Comments:
Benji bait.
"Benji bait"...
Oh damn!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
George Bush and the GOP's Solyndra!
"George Bush and the GOP's Solyndra!"...
Make that up as you went along larry g?
Do some homework...
Cute kid.
Make that up as you went along larry g?
He's not wrong. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 really started mandating ethanol into gasoline. In 2007, the mandates were increased again.
But is is not all Bush's fault. The earliest mandates of Ethanol can be found in the Alternative Motor Fuels Act (1988) and the Clean Air Act (1990). It just wasn't until 2005 and 2006 (the Renewable Fuel Standard Program) that Ethanol made a big jump.
"He's not wrong. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 really started mandating ethanol into gasoline. In 2007, the mandates were increased again"...
Try again jm...
The problem with ethanol jm is that it has fallen in with the rest of the ag-payola for both parties...
It would be interesting to graph the growth of the Ag Dept vs congressional control since the inception of the War Against Poverty scam...
Jon,
"He's not wrong. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 really started mandating ethanol into gasoline. In 2007, the mandates were increased again."
He is wrong in laying it all at the feet of the GOP. He's either ignorant or a liar.
"A week ago, the Republican National Convention called for an end to ethanol mandates, in line with the views of its nominee, John McCain.
"I've long been a strong supporter of the RFS," Obama said during a brief telephone call to members of the National Farmers Union. "I am strongly committed to advancing biofuels as a key component of reducing our dependence on foreign oil."
Besides providing home-grown fuel, ethanol creates jobs in rural America, said Obama, who supported more rural economic development. The jobless rate in rural areas is well above the U.S. average."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-usa-agriculture-obama-idUSN0933458920080910
Right, Juandos, but what I figured Larry was talking about were ethanol mandates, to which I was referring (correct me, Larry, if I am wrong). Ethanol subsidies have been around for a while (one can even argue the indirect farm subsidies are such, which could put their history back to the '30's). However, it didn't really explode until the 2000's when MBTE (a major component of conventional gasoline) was banned in '05.
The point is not who started them or why. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem: it's a government one. In the name of...what, I don't know, the government is promoting ethanol, which not only costs more than gasoline, but is terrible for an internal combustion engine.
He is wrong in laying it all at the feet of the GOP.
I don't think he was laying it all on the GOP (at least, that's not what I understood him to mean). Larry, correct me if I am wrong, but I understood his point to be the major increase in ethanol mandates/subsidies came under a Republic president and a Republican Congress, and those programs are failures. Just as we hold President Obama accountable for Solyndra, I do believe we should hold Bush accountable for Ethanol as well. That does not mean the current legislature nor president is off the hook for perpetuating this. It just means we should distribute blame where it is due.
Jon,
"The point is not who started them or why. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem."
Both Larry and Benji disagree with you. They somehow profess to believe the Democrats hands are clean on this issue.
Jon,
Here's Larry's idiot quote: "George Bush and the GOP's Solyndra!"
Benji does the same thing. It's pretty clear what they are claiming.
Jon,
"..but I understood his point to be the major increase in ethanol mandates/subsidies came under a Republic president and a Republican Congress, and those programs are failures. "
Oh, please. Show me a farm state Democrat who voted against the mandates. This is a bi-partisan scandal. On the other hand, the GOP didn't vote for taxpayer-backed loans to Solyndra.
"This is not a Democrat or Republican problem"...
Well jm I think both parties are equally guilty of using extorted tax dollars to run this crony capitalist scam called the ethanol program...
Back in '69 when I was senior in high school in south Texas there was a federal program that was paying farmers (about 8 of them if I remember correctly) in my part of Texas to grow enough horse corn to produce 30 million gallons of ethanol per harvest cycle in an area where corn doesn't grow worth a damn unless it has lots and lots of irrigation...
All the corn was rounded up and sent to a processing plant in Carrizo Springs then tanked to Houston for shipping...
Nobody really knew what is was being used for...
I figured ethanol was on its way out. Who the heck is talking about ethanol still? Greenies have been contempt with their prius for a minute.
Bush: Use ethanol to get off oil
" WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush said the United States should "get off oil" Wednesday as crude prices hit record highs and renewed his support for ethanol use despite concerns the corn-based fuel is driving up food prices and isn't more environmentally friendly than gasoline."
About to finish my lunch and then heading out to deliver a load of corn to the local ethanol plant. I've got to say I'm not a big fan of the subsidies either. At least the blender's credit expired at the end of 2011, but yes we do still have RFS in place.
I guess you could say I'm for biofuels and the potential they have, but not really in favor of the way they are being pushed along by gov't.
Based on the data of 2011 only, the marginal impacts on gasoline prices are found to be substantially higher given the increasing ethanol production and higher crude oil prices. The average effect across all regions increases to $1.09/gallon and the regional impact ranges from $0.73/gallon in the Gulf Coast to $1.69/gallon in the Midwest.
CARD Study
"Green Energy" is the nexus of rent seeking crony capitalists and revenue hungry central planning socialist governments!
"Green Energy" is the nexus of rent seeking crony capitalists and revenue hungry central planning socialist governments!
With unsubsidized ethanol selling for $0.30/gal less than RBOB,
CBOT Ethanol Prices
And, CARD telling us that the presence of ethanol is saving the average American over $1,200.00/Yr, I think we can afford to pay an extra Four Cents on a Four Dollar box of Corn Flakes; don't you?
George Bush and the GOP's Solyndra!
Very true. Bush was a big supporter of ethanol and other stupid green energy policies. From where I stand it is hard to see much of a difference between the GOP and Democrats. Both want big government policies to continue and their biggest disagreement is about how to split the rule and who needs to call the shots.
and Solyndra was 500 million while Ethanol was 4-5 BILLION - per year,
one year of ethanol was equivalent to 8 Solyndras.
"one year of ethanol was equivalent to 8 Solyndras."
And your hero Obama supported both.
“And your hero Obama supported both.
true - but listen to your buddy Bush:
" When you hear us talking about less dependence on foreign sources of energy, one of the ways to become less dependent is to enhance the use of renewable sources of energy. (Applause.)
The bill also will lead to a greater diversity of fuels for cars and trucks. The bill includes tax incentives for producers of ethanol and biodiesel. The bill includes a flexible, cost-effective renewable fuel standard that will double the amount of ethanol and biodiesel in our fuel supply over the next seven years. Using ethanol and biodiesel will leave our air cleaner. And every time we use a home-grown fuel, particularly these, we're going to be helping our farmers, and at the same time, be less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.)
I used to like to kid, but I really wasn't kidding when I said, some day a President is going to pick up the crop report -- (laughter) -- and they're going to say we're growing a lot of corn, and -- or soybeans -- and the first thing that's going to pop in the President's mind is, we're less dependent on foreign sources of energy. It makes sense to promote ethanol and biodiesel. (Applause.)"
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html
lord, Paul!
and Solyndra was 500 million while Ethanol was 4-5 BILLION - per year,
one year of ethanol was equivalent to 8 Solyndras.
The problem my friend is that the Democrats pushed for both. And Solyndra is not the only bit of pork that can be traced to Obama. He supported many uneconomic 'green energy' projects in exchange for support from their owners. He got his money. The companies got their money. The taxpayers got screwed.
The fix for all this is to stop government from being able to give your money to whichever support group puts its hands out and demands funds in exchange for campaign contributions, jobs for supporters, etc. Take away the power to steal and taxpayers and consumers will be protected from the organized theft that is so common in all authoritarian political systems.
rufus claims: "And, CARD telling us that the presence of ethanol is saving the average American over $1,200.00/Yr, I think we can afford to pay an extra Four Cents on a Four Dollar box of Corn Flakes; don't you?"...
Ahhh, no rufus...
A Hungry World Population? Oh Well, Let Them Eat Ethanol!
Ethanol=GOP moonshine, proof 200 socialism.
Yes, some Dems voted for ethanol, especially those form the Corn Belt.
But rural America today is a federal ward, and red country.
All of this "R" vs "D" stuff is a huge waste of time. I find it monotonous to wade through the continuous back-and-forth stuff on this and other blogs.
Let's stop the finger pointing and just fix the damn problem.
I'm not sure, yet, how to do this; but I am sure that name calling and playing the blame game won't fix anything.
bob wright: "but I am sure that name calling and playing the blame game won't fix anything."
Well, Bob, some do get carried away. But the truth is, there are huge fundamental differences in how the two parties currently view the role of government. For that reason, agreeing on how to fix the problems - or even agreeing on what are the problems - is just not going to happen any time soon.
As long as Democrats believe in an expansive, intrusive government - and Republicans keep moving toward a limited role for government - pleas to just "fix the problem" are a waste of time.
But rural America today is a federal ward, and red country.
=============================
And the curent situation in the Midwest shows why. Almost no one can afford the kind of losses farmers will take this year, and it is unlikely that private insurance could sell policies at prices they could afford.
The alternative is "creative destruction" as farms fold and are absorbed by increasingly large farm monopolies, and higher food prices for all. Maybe that is the way to go, but if that experiment fails, it would be a very hard lesson to learn and recover from.
Ethanol=GOP moonshine, proof 200 socialism.
Yes, some Dems voted for ethanol, especially those form the Corn Belt.
But rural America today is a federal ward, and red country.
Some Democrats? I think that you are talking out of your backside again. In the most recent attempt to get rid of the subsidies most Democrats voted for the subsidies while the majority of Republicans voted to get rid of them.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/166369-senate-votes-to-preserve-6-billion-in-ethanol-subsidies
All of this "R" vs "D" stuff is a huge waste of time. I find it monotonous to wade through the continuous back-and-forth stuff on this and other blogs.
Let's stop the finger pointing and just fix the damn problem.
I'm not sure, yet, how to do this; but I am sure that name calling and playing the blame game won't fix anything.
But don't you see the problem Bob? The Ds and Rs are exactly the same where it really matters. They do not argue against bigger government, meddling in the economy, or the loss of freedom. They are simply fighting over who has control. The solution is actually simple. Take away the power to tax and meddle in the economy and it won't matter who is in government. The solution is individual liberty not a strong central power that makes plans that usually fail miserably.
We pay farmers Not to plant 30,000,000 Acres.
Some of you folks that don't know corn cobs from toilet paper need to understand that, due to higher demand caused by ethanol, Corn Acres Planted are Up by about 15 Million Acres (and, that's just in the U.S.)
As long as Democrats believe in an expansive, intrusive government - and Republicans keep moving toward a limited role for government - pleas to just "fix the problem" are a waste of time.
The funny thing is that government expanded under Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. What is said does not matter nearly as much as what is done. Reagan got elected on the promise to get rid of the Department of Education but the budget doubled under his watch. To make things worse, Bush I 'fixed' Reagan's errors by calling for national goals for the Department. In 2002 Bush II signs No Child Left Behind and K–12 spending increases from the $20 billion in Clinton's last year to $37 billion by 2005.
The claim that Republicans stand for limited government is a myth. There is no objective evidence anywhere in the record that republicans have done anything other than talk about limited government and individual liberty.
The alternative is "creative destruction" as farms fold and are absorbed by increasingly large farm monopolies, and higher food prices for all.
As usual you are confused. Competition does not permit food prices to rice excessively. Yes, they will go up when the central banks flood the system with liquidity but as long as there are large players competing for the consumers' wallet prices will be kept in check. If you want more protection all you have to do is ask your representatives to get rid of all of the tariffs on food imports and prices will be as low as possible.
Maybe that is the way to go, but if that experiment fails, it would be a very hard lesson to learn and recover from.
The socialist experiment certainly failed and it is time that we let the markets work as intended.
We pay farmers Not to plant 30,000,000 Acres.
Some of you folks that don't know corn cobs from toilet paper need to understand that, due to higher demand caused by ethanol, Corn Acres Planted are Up by about 15 Million Acres (and, that's just in the U.S.)
You should not pay anyone not to plant and you should not subsidise ethanol because both hurt the taxpayers and consumers.
As long as Democrats believe in an expansive, intrusive government - and Republicans keep moving toward a limited role for government - pleas to just "fix the problem" are a waste of time
so Bush and the GOP are the ones who passed the original Ethanol subsidy to the tune of 4-5 billion a year and Bush and the GOP passed the Medicare Part D bill to the tune of about 40 billion a year and the DOD budget went from 300 billion to 900 billion... Bush told the SCOTUS that secret kidnappings and torture were none of their business... etc, etc, etc...
The Dems have always admitted they were for expansive govt - and they are true to their principles but the GOP has always claimed they are for limited low tax, less spending govt but they don't hold true to their principles.
Even now, when we have the sequester, the GOP is hollering like stuck pigs saying that 50 billion in cuts from a 900+ billion DOD budget would be "devastating".
Ethanol is not subsidized.
But, all those Oil Subsdies are still in place.
VangeIV: "The claim that Republicans stand for limited government is a myth."
Well, you sometimes don't read carefully enough what I post, Vange. As I said earlier, the Republican Party is moving toward a limited role for govenment. Evidence? Recent wins by Tea Party-backed candidates plus the rise of other limited government Rpublicans will give the Republicans a solid, limited government core:
Rand Paul - KY
Ted Cruz - TX
Richard Mourdock - IN
Mike Lee - UT
Ron Johnson - WI
Marco Rubio - FL
Pat Toomey - PA
Jim Demint - SC
Jerry Moran - KS
The Republican Party is changing, Vange. That's what I said earlier.
Larry G: "the GOP has always claimed they are for limited low tax, less spending govt but they don't hold true to their principles."
I don't deny that. Like Vange, you didn't read my comment carefully enough. The Bush and Cheney regime is over. Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Marco Rubio, and other limited government leaders are taking control.
That even most of the Tea Party candidates are resisting defense spending cuts is frustrating. I have let my senators and my congressman know that I favor reductions to all parts of government. I suspect other tea Party'ers have done likewise, but I can't know for sure.
What I don't know is how much of the Conservatives' position on defense is staking out a bargaining position. Liberals will want all the cuts to come from defense. Conservatives will want the cuts to come from social programs. The position for Conservatives to take is to argue for no defense cuts and then compromise down from there.
Well, you sometimes don't read carefully enough what I post, Vange. As I said earlier, the Republican Party is moving toward a limited role for govenment. Evidence? Recent wins by Tea Party-backed candidates plus the rise of other limited government Rpublicans will give the Republicans a solid, limited government core:
Rand Paul - KY
Ted Cruz - TX
Richard Mourdock - IN
Mike Lee - UT
Ron Johnson - WI
Marco Rubio - FL
Pat Toomey - PA
Jim Demint - SC
Jerry Moran - KS
The Republican Party is changing, Vange. That's what I said earlier.
The GOP leadership opposed most of the Tea Party backed candidates. And they have had no effect on the GOP Presidential primaries. The only candidate to propose actual cuts in spending was Ron Paul. But the GOP leadership at the national and local level put up all kinds of barriers, changed rules, and resorted to force and fraud to stop him from getting enough delegates to even get a speaker spot during the convention. And it is clear that most GOP voters have no desire to stop meddling abroad or to cut spending. Which is why the GOP may go the way of the Federalist Party and Whig Party from which it was formed.
I don't deny that. Like Vange, you didn't read my comment carefully enough. The Bush and Cheney regime is over. Sarah Palin, Jim Demint, Marco Rubio, and other limited government leaders are taking control.
Sarah Palin? Marc Rubio? They have never supported a candidate who has proposed an actual cut in spending. Rubio supports Romney, who would spend more than is being spent today and is talking about a reduction in the rate of increase in spending, not actual spending cuts.
As I said, the claim that the GOP is for limited government is a myth. You are not helping your cause by your examples.
That even most of the Tea Party candidates are resisting defense spending cuts is frustrating. I have let my senators and my congressman know that I favor reductions to all parts of government. I suspect other tea Party'ers have done likewise, but I can't know for sure.
The Tea Party is not monolithic. A part of it represents the Ron Paul desire for small government with limited powers but another part is made up of Social Conservatives who support war and foreign meddling.
"But, all those Oil Subsdies are still in place"...
What are these 'supposed' oil subsidies rufus besides being a liberal fairy tale?
Is the dollar value of those supposed subsidies worth more than the federal excise taxes on gasoline & diesel?
Is the dollar value of those supposed subsidies worth more than the federal excise taxes on gasoline & diesel?
not sure I'm following your point.
fuel taxes are used to build, maintain and operate roads.
are you saying that - roads are subsidized also?
Oil Depletion Allowance?
What I don't know is how much of the Conservatives' position on defense is staking out a bargaining position. Liberals will want all the cuts to come from defense. Conservatives will want the cuts to come from social programs. The position for Conservatives to take is to argue for no defense cuts and then compromise down from there.
The 'Conservative' position is the position of the neoconservatives and the intelligence agency operatives who funded Buckley and marginalised the anti-New Deal coalition that included people like Howard Buffett, HL Mencken, Isabelle Patterson, John T. Flynn, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Garet Garrett, Robert Daft, Frank Chodorov, Louis Bromfield, Colonel Robert McCormick, R.C. Hoiles, Ayn Rand, Leonard Read, etc.
Note that the term 'Old Right' is not really appropriate because most of the people who belonged to it were liberals in the classical sense. That said, this is not the place to take that point further. If you are interested I can provide you with references where you can read up on the subject.
"not sure I'm following your point"...
Well there's a shocking admission larry g...:-)
"fuel taxes are used to build, maintain and operate roads"...
Wrong again, it 'used' to be the way roads were paid for larry g...
Paying for Pet Projects at the Pump
"are you saying that - roads are subsidized also?"...
Well of course they are...
$150,000,000,000.00 (that's Billion -with a "B")/Year Spent in the Persian Gulf?
"Oil Depletion Allowance?"...
Consider the following rufus...
Depletion Allowance Law & Legal Definition
"$150,000,000,000.00 (that's Billion -with a "B")/Year Spent in the Persian Gulf?"...
Not to knock that amount of spen/wasted money rufus but this country panders to parasites to the tune of nearly $1 trillion every year...
So what's your real point?
Not to knock that amount of spen/wasted money rufus but this country panders to parasites to the tune of nearly $1 trillion every year...
did you mean 668 billion instead of a trillion?
"$150,000,000,000.00 (that's Billion -with a "B")/Year Spent in the Persian Gulf?"
Two things Rufus: First, if you want to be taken seriously when you just throw out a big number you must provide a reference so others can see how that big number was reached. And just a hint, DON'T link to sites that are obviously favorable to ethanol. Try to be objective if you can. I know it's difficult for you.
Second, even assuming that number is accurate, and $150bn was spent on Persian Gulf oil, wasn't there $150bn in oil exchanged for the money? Was there fraud or coercion involved? Did the buyers get exactly what they expected and what they paid for? What's the problem?
"did you mean 668 billion instead of a trillion?"...
Apparently you didn't read on further larry g: And that does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284 billion to that figure...
Sadly larry g it only gets worse...
From the Washington Examiner: GAO: $460 million food stamp benefits went to households ineligible under federal limits
"did you mean 668 billion instead of a trillion?"
The exact number isn't as important as your agreement that it is used to pander to parasites.
My "point" is, the post was about energy (ethanol,) and the discussion turned to "subsidies."
I was just trying to put "energy subsidies" in context.
My "point" is, the post was about energy (ethanol,) and the discussion turned to "subsidie...
Which is something you did rufus...
"I was just trying to put "energy subsidies" in context"...
I agree rufus, context is important, to important to be cherry picked...
so Juandos are you agreeing that in the Fed budget that welfare is 668 billion and DOD/National Defense is 900+ billion?
First off, Ron, I don't care if you take me seriously or not, because I don't take you seriously.
I was referring to the Iraq War, and the continuing presence of Two Carrier Groups, 15,000 Troops in Kuwait, etc.
And, what did we get for it? The right to pay $100.00/bbl to the Saudi/Kuwaiti/UAE Princes' Swiss Bank Accounts.
I'd rather buy my energy from Mississippi farmers. But, that's just me.
No, Juandos; Jon Murphy made the first reference to ethanol "subsidies" at 10:16, yesterday.
"so Juandos are you agreeing that in the Fed budget that welfare is 668 billion and DOD/National Defense is 900+ billion?"...
Wow larry g, you've made some bizzare leaps of illogic before but this one is a real towering monument to your liberal idiocy!...
You really are going all out in admitting that you not only didn't read the Cato study but you had to purposefully force yourself to forget the federal Ponzi scheme called socialist security besides the other two major wealth transfer scams called medicare and medicaid don't exist...
You also apparently chose to ignore the extra nearly half billion dollars wasted an already ridiculous wealth transfer scam called SNAP...
You larry g have been shown on numerous occassions from a wide variety of sources that these socialist wealth transfer scams collectively spend far more money than the defense budget...
"And, what did we get for it? The right to pay $100.00/bbl to the Saudi/Kuwaiti/UAE Princes' Swiss Bank Accounts"...
Hmmm, well rufus that begs the question, do you have something credible to back up that statement?
Juanos - MedicAid and SNAP are included in your report, (are you reading your own report)?
tell me how much SS affects the current deficit about 30 billion if not mistaken.
MediCare - yes... add about 250-300 billion...
so about a trillion in entitlements and about a trillion in DOD.
and about 1.2 trillion deficit.
Juandos - see here is the problem with your reading references:
" None of this, of course, includes middleclass entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, which, while not designed specifically as anti-poverty programs, nevertheless
represent transfer payments from the
government."
SS is not a transfer payment from the budget.
SS is funded from FICA taxes paid for by the folks who will receive benefits.
so your CATO folks either cannot keep the facts straight or choose not to.
errors of that type undercut their credibility.
"Juanos - MedicAid and SNAP are included in your report, (are you reading your own report)?"...
Per your usual style you're wrong larry g because only the legislated amounts were considered and not the overages due to corruption and theft...
"SS is not a transfer payment from the budget"...
Does it somehow make you feel better larry g to lie to yourself like that?
FICA is wealth transfer scam from people employed today (sans any choice in the matter) to people who aren't working and not merely just retired...
"tell me how much SS affects the current deficit about 30 billion if not mistaken.
MediCare - yes... add about 250-300 billion...
so about a trillion in entitlements and about a trillion in DOD.
and about 1.2 trillion deficit"...
Its really laughable that you're trying to make an argument that all these different socialist programs somehow have their individual sources...
Can you read? You've been shown this link before, why are you having such a problem with other than the fact that it doesn't fit your narrative?
US Debt Clock
"SS is not a transfer payment from the budget.
SS is funded from FICA taxes paid for by the folks who will receive benefits.
so your CATO folks either cannot keep the facts straight or choose not to"...
Just how good does your foot taste to you larry g?
Juandos - SS did not cause the deficit.
cutting SS won't do anything to help the deficit.
you and CATO are probably opposed to the concept of SS but when you conflate it with the budget and deficit - you show that either you do not really know or you don't care - which undermines your credibility.
There are some legitimate issues with entitlements as the list CATO provided - demonstrates but please note they include things like PELL grants and EIc and child credits but not mortgage deductions and tax-free employer-provided health care.
by focusing ONLY on some things and misrepresenting others - they and you show that you are not really serious about cuts but just advocating an ideology.
IF you're really concerned about the debt clock - you also would have to be realistic enough to acknowledge that the budget cannot be balanced with cuts only to entitlements.
That's the basic dilemma right now. If we are going to balance the budget - cuts will have to hit both entitlements and DoD.
Oh.. and the waste and fraud? Do they have that problem with DOD spending also?
Where is the CATO paper that shows how to balance the budget?
larry g continues to stumble along in fairy tale land: "you and CATO are probably opposed to the concept of SS but when you conflate it with the budget and deficit - you show that either you do not really know or you don't care - which undermines your credibility"...
This is kind of funny larry g, you're acting like socialist security was some other country or something instead of the bookkeeping gimmick that it is...
Regardless of how they label the extorted wealth of individuals it all ends up in one government pot...
Try this out instead: New York Yankees Facebook Page Announces Derek Jeter To Miss Rest Of Season Due To Sex Change
so Juandos are you and CATO interested in balancing the budget ?
You have the entitlements pretty well scoped out.
So how would you actually balance the budget?
"So how would you actually balance the budget?"...
Why larry g that's an easy question answer (it may be politically impossible to accomplish though) and that's to dump not merely all entitlements but all departments created since the so called War on Poverty was initiated...
Do you have a "politically possible" approach?
dump not merely all entitlements but all departments created since the so called War on Poverty was initiated
would that cut 1.2 trillion?
"First off, Ron, I don't care if you take me seriously or not, because I don't take you seriously."
Hey, it's not just me Rufus, you get called out pretty regularly for meaningless nonsense you pull from your ass.
"I was referring to the Iraq War, and the continuing presence of Two Carrier Groups, 15,000 Troops in Kuwait, etc."
Hopefully you have complained to the people that started that Iraq war, maintain 2 carrier groups in the region and 15k troops in Kuwait, and to the people who have continued those policies for the last 3 1/2 years.
"And, what did we get for it? The right to pay $100.00/bbl to the Saudi/Kuwaiti/UAE Princes' Swiss Bank Accounts."
Pure xenophobia. Why are you concerned with what sellers do with the money once you freely and gladly hand it to them? You, of all people should understand that oil is a global commodity and is completely fungible. US oil interests import oil from dozens of countries all over the world and export oil to dozens of countries,
It must be really troublesome to you that when you put gas in your tank you have no idea where it came from.
Would you prefer that Chinese buyers get Persian Gulf oil because you have a beef with the sellers? Someone will buy the oil, so you can't hurt those Princes by boycotting them.
"I'd rather buy my energy from Mississippi farmers. But, that's just me."
You're welcome to do whatever you please, but don't demand policies that make decisions for everyone.
juandos
"All the corn was rounded up and sent to a processing plant in Carrizo Springs then tanked to Houston for shipping..."
Say, you're right. That's another job lost to automation - corn herder.
"Say, you're right. That's another job lost to automation - corn herder"...
Actually ron h you're more right than you know...
It actually threw several dozen braceros out of work when some smart ass showed up with a John Deere corn harvester...
BTW ron h, speaking of John Deere I'm betting you've not seen a tattoo like this in your local grocery store...
juandos
"BTW ron h, speaking of John Deere I'm betting you've not seen a tattoo like this in your local grocery store.."
Well, you are right about that, I've NEVER seen one like that ANYWHERE.
I can only ask...WHY? WHY?
Perhaps she pissed off the artist and hasn't actually seen it yet.
There MUST be a rational answer.
I'd rather buy my energy from Mississippi farmers. But, that's just me.
You are free to do so. Others want to be able to buy fuel without going to the farmers for ethanol.
"Do you have a "politically possible" approach?"...
Well larry g I believe were long past the time when some politically palatable choices can also be practiical choices...
"would that cut 1.2 trillion?"...
larry g this country is approaching a $16 trillion debt level...
larry g this country is approaching a $16 trillion debt level.
Indeed - and if you did not cut the deficit and balance the budget, that 16 trillion will be 20, 30, 40 trillion.
you not only have to cut the deficit, you have to generate a surplus if you want to pay down the existing debt.
this is singing to the choir.
I was asking you if you have a favorite way to balance the budget - not just make "cuts" - but ENOUGH cuts to actually balance the budget (or surplus).
How would you do it?
"I was asking you if you have a favorite way to balance the budget - not just make "cuts" - but ENOUGH cuts to actually balance the budget (or surplus).
How would you do it?"....
Merely balancing the budget is now a a non-starter larry g, a complete waste of time and energy...
Like you noted we have to start generating surpluses somehow and do it for several many years (decades?) in a row...
How about this for a serious dose of pessimism?
Economist Richard Duncan: Civilization May Not Survive 'Death Spiral'
Richard Duncan, formerly of the World Bank and chief economist at Blackhorse Asset Mgmt., says America's $16 trillion federal debt has escalated into a "death spiral, "as he told CNBC.
And it could result in a depression so severe that he doesn't "think our civilization could survive it."
And Duncan is not alone in warning that the U.S. economy may go into a "death spiral."
Since the recession, noted economists including Laurence Kotlikoff, a former member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, have come to similar conclusions.
Kotlikoff estimates the true fiscal gap is $211 trillion when unfunded entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are included...(there's a bit more)
Corn subsidies (all ag subsidies) at the Federal level began with the New Deal.
It's just a special case of Corporate Welfare, which is a special case of Welfare.
Bailouts are Welfare turned up to 11.
Solution: rollback.
They are simply fighting over who has control.
That much is true. Neither side, nor the dogmatic libertariians are looking for the best answer, just more power.
The solution is actually simple. Take away the power to tax and meddle in the economy and it won't matter who is in government. The solution is individual liberty not a strong central power that makes plans that usually fail miserably.
Individual and corporate plans also fail miserably, and pretty often. There is a very high cost to all those failures that you do not seem to consider. If you think this is the "simple answer" to a very complx question, you can be assured that it as almost certainly wrong.
Individual and corporate plans also fail miserably, and pretty often. There is a very high cost to all those failures that you do not seem to consider. If you think this is the "simple answer" to a very complx question, you can be assured that it as almost certainly wrong.
Yes I do. People should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as they don't meddle in the affairs of others and keep their hands to themselves. And they should take responsibility for their own actions and their own lives.
Note the irony? You keep blaming those that seek power for the fact that they are corrupt and rule badly yet you are too scared to live as a free man.
What about the insurors? The losses this year may be so big that even they need a bailout. Crop inurors have partial reinsurance from the government, otherwise the cost of insurance would be so high that almost no farmers could afford it. Without the insurance almost no farmer can take the risk of being wiped out in a single year.
As farmers get wiped out and liquidated, land prices would fall until farming becomes more profitable. But the cost of operations is now so high that even zero cost land might not be enough to keep farmers in the business without insurance.
You may think rural areas are a federal ward, but just let them go under and see what happens. it is going to require a lot more progfit ti incentivse the risk taking that will be necessary absent fovernment programs, and that will result in much higher food prices: expect them to run as much as 25 and 30% of the average household budget - if there is one.
The idea of farmers getting paid not to plant is a myth. There is a conservtion reserve program in which government rents highly sensitive lands from farmers so they won't tear it up, but that is not quite the same as paying farmers not to plant.
If you can get me paid not to plant, I will split the money with you, but I do not think it can be done.
Why larry g that's an easy question answer (it may be politically impossible to accomplish though) and that's to dump not merely all entitlements but all departments created since the so called War on Poverty was initiated...
=================================
Dumping entitlements is just a huge retroactive tax increase. One that would instantly throw millions into poverty and create a situation that young people will need fifty years to dig out of.
If your idea was ever enacted, it would not last a month before all those programs and offices were re-assembled.
cutting entitlements only is a non-answer as even if you did that - you'd still have a deficit.
It's clear that entitlement costs are going to go through the roof because of boomer demographics and significant cuts are going to be required but there are no serious proposals from any credible source that advocates cutting entitlements only.
The dust-up over the sequester shows that the folks who yell the loudest about cutting spending - won't actually agree to do it if it includes DOD.
"Individual and corporate plans also fail miserably, and pretty often."
Yes they do, but with an enormous difference. Do you really not understand what that difference is?
It's THEIR private resources as opposed to MY money that is lost.
"There is a very high cost to all those failures that you do not seem to consider."
What is that, besides their own private resources that will be picked up by others who might make better use of them?
"If you think this is the "simple answer" to a very complx question, you can be assured that it as almost certainly wrong."
It IS a simple answer, but perhaps not an easy one. No one wants to give up power once they have it.
"What about the insurors? The losses this year may be so big that even they need a bailout. "
Do you really not understand the moral hazard involved in bailouts, assuming you mean government bailouts? Not to mention the injustice of taking money from me to bail out those who haven't needed to build a good business model?
"Crop inurors have partial reinsurance from the government, otherwise the cost of insurance would be so high that almost no farmers could afford it. Without the insurance almost no farmer can take the risk of being wiped out in a single year."
The concept of reinsurance as it applies in this context is to pool risk across geographic regions so that natural occurrence or disaster such as a drought in one area doesn't wipe out insurers in that region. Private re-insurers are plentiful. Here are some examples:
- Munich Re – Germany ($31.4 billion Gross Written Premiums)
- Swiss Re – Switzerland ($30.3 billion)
- Berkshire Hathaway / General Re – USA (n.a.)
- Hannover Re – Germany ($12 billion)
- SCOR – France ($6.9 billion)
Reinsurance Group of America – USA ($5.7 billion)
- Transamerica Re – USA ($4.2 billion)
- Everest Re – Bermuda ($4.0 billion)
- Partner Re – Bermuda ($3.8 billion)
- Axis Capital – Bermuda
XL Re – Bermuda ($3.4 billion) (part of XL Group)
There is no reason to believe that only government, without any concern for costs, can do a better job by risking my tax money.
"As farmers get wiped out and liquidated, land prices would fall until farming becomes more profitable."
What does "liquidated" mean to you? Do you picture a farmer and his farm disappearing into thin air leaving only bare land?
You're funny.
As in any other business, the assets of those who fail will be acquired by those who can operate more successfully. You must think all farmers are equally skilled at managing their businesses.
"But the cost of operations is now so high that even zero cost land might not be enough to keep farmers in the business without insurance."
What nonsense. Learn some economics. There is no reason to suggest that insurance isn't available, and the key to farming success, as in EVERY OTHER endeavor, is to find ways to reduce costs.
Try to see beyond your narrow collectivist views that only government central planners can manage our lives.
"You may think rural areas are a federal ward..."
You're confused. That's Benji.
"...but just let them go under and see what happens. it is going to require a lot more progfit ti incentivse the risk taking that will be necessary absent fovernment programs..."
What nonsense. Learn some economics. What if we all just pay directly for the food we buy instead of collectively paying for everyone else's? Why do you think the total cost would be different?
"...and that will result in much higher food prices: expect them to run as much as 25 and 30% of the average household budget - if there is one."
LOL
A number pulled directly from your ass, no doubt.
"Dumping entitlements is just a huge retroactive tax increase. One that would instantly throw millions into poverty and create a situation that young people will need fifty years to dig out of."
More meaningless nonsense. Millions are already in poverty, they just don't know it, and have no reason to get out of poverty because I'm forced to support them.
If you mean that young people will have trouble getting out of poverty without my help then you haven't been paying attention.
By the way, I've already helped 3 young people avoid poverty by supporting them with my own money when they were young, seeing that they got needed education, and provided them with the skills and attitudes to succeed on their own as adults without needing a penny from you or anyone else.
Your welcome.
What about the insurors? The losses this year may be so big that even they need a bailout. Crop inurors have partial reinsurance from the government, otherwise the cost of insurance would be so high that almost no farmers could afford it. Without the insurance almost no farmer can take the risk of being wiped out in a single year.
What about the insurers? They do not 'need' a bailout because they are supposed to finance shortfalls out of previous profits and the float that is set aside for payouts. (Bufftett covers this regularly in his Letter to Shareholders.) And there is no need for government guarantees because all they do is distort the market.
As farmers get wiped out and liquidated, land prices would fall until farming becomes more profitable. But the cost of operations is now so high that even zero cost land might not be enough to keep farmers in the business without insurance.
This is nonsense. Farming can be very profitable for a farmer who is prudent and does not take excessive risks.
You may think rural areas are a federal ward, but just let them go under and see what happens. it is going to require a lot more progfit ti incentivse the risk taking that will be necessary absent fovernment programs, and that will result in much higher food prices: expect them to run as much as 25 and 30% of the average household budget - if there is one.
A federal ward? No. The government has no business in agriculture just as it has no business in housing, food distribution, energy, education, etc. The farmers should take their own risks and make their own profits without government meddling. Since we all have to eat it is very clear that there is a market for food. Let that market determine how much food should cost and how much should be produced.
The idea of farmers getting paid not to plant is a myth. There is a conservtion reserve program in which government rents highly sensitive lands from farmers so they won't tear it up, but that is not quite the same as paying farmers not to plant.
But it is not a myth. Farmers have been paid not to plant crops and have received all kinds of subsidies from politicians looking for votes.
"The idea of farmers getting paid not to plant is a myth. There is a conservtion reserve program in which government rents highly sensitive lands from farmers so they won't tear it up, but that is not quite the same as paying farmers not to plant."
And for whose benefit does government rent land from farmers using my money? Is it in my interest?
What does "sensitive" mean, and why is my money used to pay people not to use their own private property?
In the area where I farm most of the "sensitive" areas are along drainage ditches. They are grass filter strips between the land in production and the drainage ditch acting as a filter. Where we farm they are 40' wide. To be in the program, these acres must be planted with an approved mix of plants. You cannot mow these areas until after the nesting period of certain birds is over. These strips act as refuge for wildlife as well as natural water filters.
I believe there are about 10M acres in CRP. On our farm I would be in favor of leaving most of these grass areas as is when the CRP contract runs out. They are generally on marginal ground anyway, and they provide access points for large equipment. I can't speak for everyone, but most of the CRP ground we work with is on land we rent from land owners a couple generations removed from the farm who don't even live in this state.
I don't think I could make a case that land owners aren't paid to not plant, because that is essentially the trade off. What you won't find (at least not in the areas I travel) is fields left bare because the gov't pays a farm to do so.
thefarmerslife
"I believe there are about 10M acres in CRP. On our farm I would be in favor of leaving most of these grass areas as is when the CRP contract runs out. They are generally on marginal ground anyway, and they provide access points for large equipment. I can't speak for everyone, but most of the CRP ground we work with is on land we rent from land owners a couple generations removed from the farm who don't even live in this state.
I don't think I could make a case that land owners aren't paid to not plant, because that is essentially the trade off. What you won't find (at least not in the areas I travel) is fields left bare because the gov't pays a farm to do so."
Thanks for your excellent insight. That has been my understanding also.
A friend in Wyoming is paid to leave a stream that runs through his property in its natural state, and fence it to keep his 3 or 4 horses away from it. This is just gravy for him, as he prefers to keep it natural in any case. I assume adjacent property owners are similarly paid.
The question is, why am I helping pay for something that private property owners would most likely do in any case as it benefits them?
Excellent question, Ron. Wish I had an excellent answer.
Post a Comment
<< Home