StarGazer
New member
You obviously don't know the first thing about economics. Please study, then reply again.
Corn Ethanol Subsidy Going Away
- Thread starter 1engineer
- Start date
You obviously don't know the first thing about economics. Please study, then reply again.
Remember rednecks - the bottom line is not always the number one objective. The health of people and the health of our environment must be considered. And the #1 job "creator" right now should be the government since they have the resources to do so. Instead of stripping government jobs (police, firemen, teachers, etc.), the government should be creating them. Stimulating the economy starts from the bottom up, not the top down.
Sorry, I don't normally participate in the flame wars but I get tired of conservatives on this board (which seem to be the majority, strangely enough. I thought conservatives only bought American cars) constantly taking their shots and not getting called out.
Regarding the actual topic at hand, I'm ecstatic about this news. Corn-based ethanol was never a good idea. Brazil has the climate for growing sugarcane which is much more efficient. What we should be doing is growing hemp for ethanol (as well as many other uses, not to be confused with the higher THC cannabis plants although they have useful properties as well). That way we can compete with Brazil. This is certainly much greener and better for the US than importing ethanol from Brazil.
I imagine corn will be more expensive in the stores. Mexico can go back to buying their own locally grown corn since they will no longer have to compete with cheaper subsidized American corn. This means more jobs in Mexico so they're less likely to come to the US for work. There might be less corn-based sugars being used in our foods which is better for our health in the long run. And less tax dollars going to something that most of us don’t want anyway. It’s a win-win-win in my book.
The government has nothing. To give something away, the must take it from someone else. Everything they do is financed 100% by the American taxpayer. Don't get confused.
thebwlife
Senior Member
Oh do you mean Keynesian Economics, but your the expert. Read this maybe a redneck can learn you something.
"In part, this is a debate about Keynesian economics, which is the theory that the economy can be boosted if the government borrows money and then gives it to people so they will spend it. This supposedly "primes the pump" as the money circulates through the economy. Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can't inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy's right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy's left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn't boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it's not any bigger.
The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Both Hoover and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all through the 1930s. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald Ford and George W. Bush and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism also failed in Japan during the 1990s."
Quote from here - http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9825
Back to the main topic -
here is an article from 2007 on why ethanol actually makes gas cost more.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7308
Why we'll not really see a change in gasoline prices now days.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12623
Ethanol makes groceries more expensive.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ethanol-program-milks-consumers-dry/
These all speak to why free trade works - and true economics work, basic supply and demand principles that force a product to stand on it own in the general public.
But remember I'm just a "redneck" from Oklahoma who "don't know the first thing about economics".
Last edited:
StarGazer
New member
You said that you work for the oil and natural gas industries, right? You do know that those industries collect government subsidies, right? That means that your job was, at least partially, created by the government. During depressions/recessions, the government needs to spend money to make money. This is basic Keynesian economics. It has been demonstrated successfully many times in the past (post depression, post WWII Germany/Japan, current day China, etc.) and would do us some good at this time.
I don't mean anything by my use of "redneck". I just used it to juxtapose your use of the word "hippy".
tlflow
New member
Remember rednecks - the bottom line is not always the number one objective. The health of people and the health of our environment must be considered. And the #1 job "creator" right now should be the government since they have the resources to do so. Instead of stripping government jobs (police, firemen, teachers, etc.), the government should be creating them. Stimulating the economy starts from the bottom up, not the top down.
Sorry, I don't normally participate in the flame wars but I get tired of conservatives on this board (which seem to be the majority, strangely enough. I thought conservatives only bought American cars
Regarding the actual topic at hand, I'm ecstatic about this news. Corn-based ethanol was never a good idea. Brazil has the climate for growing sugarcane which is much more efficient. What we should be doing is growing hemp for ethanol (as well as many other uses, not to be confused with the higher THC cannabis plants although they have useful properties as well
I imagine corn will be more expensive in the stores. Mexico can go back to buying their own locally grown corn since they will no longer have to compete with cheaper subsidized American corn. This means more jobs in Mexico so they're less likely to come to the US for work. There might be less corn-based sugars being used in our foods which is better for our health in the long run. And less tax dollars going to something that most of us don’t want anyway. It’s a win-win-win in my book.
I read this again ... you're not ignorant, you're genuinely stupid ... maybe the lid fell on your head too many times when you were gitten a drink.
StarGazer
New member
How about demonstrating how smart you are by refuting my arguments instead of relying on ad hominem attacks?
tlflow
New member
i'm just a redneck what do you expect?
thebwlife
Senior Member
I was editing a post while all this was going on and just did that. Also one upped you by actually posting something pertinent to the original thread.
see post #23.
Last edited:
StarGazer
New member
Appeal to authority. Got any ideas of your own?
StarGazer
New member
Dude, that reply wasn't to you...
thebwlife
Senior Member
oh like the idea of Keynesian Economics - that was your own idea right?
Japan worked out so great that they even have a name for it - "the lost decade".
I'm done with the thread, enjoy.
StarGazer
New member
California generates more federal income than it takes. Might want to read up before you employ useless sarcasm.
Yes yes, one of those in the Austrian school of thought. Please name one nation that has followed these trickle down theories and had long/stable growth...
That's what is genuinely great about sound ideas based on empirical facts. They withstand the test of time. So, no, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I have a better way than what has worked time and time again. Neither am I blind enough miss the reality of what hasn't worked, regardless of what your network news has sold you on.
You are launching "educate yourself" bombs yet, scoff at my submission? This is the way of the liberal. "I don't agree with you so, shut up". I suppose it's no worse than republicans using fear and labels such as "unpatriotic" when you merely question their authority over what it is I do with my freedom. When you can convince yourself the Keynesian theory of economics is sound and has worked vs. the Hayek model, then you are free to engage me in conversation.
Ron Paul 2012. Be fooled no longer.
thebwlife
Senior Member
I generate way more federal income than I take too.
I did also edit that post before you finished this one to take my backhanded slap off of CA.
America, till about the late 20s.
StarGazer
New member
Okay, then please answer my question posed earlier - name a country that has employed trickle-down economics and remained stable and prosperous for any length of time? These ideas might seem attractive in a vacuum but they do not work within the complex real world.
Sorry 1engineer for participating in the threadjack
StarGazer
New member
Wow, really?? You mean the robber baron era? We should PM. Don't want to drift too much here.
Okay, then please answer my question posed earlier - name a country that has employed trickle-down economics and remained stable and prosperous for any length of time? These ideas might seem attractive in a vacuum but they do not work within the complex real world.
Sorry 1engineer for participating in the threadjack
Look above for the answer to that question. Also, ironic you talk about success in a vacuum. If liberal economic ideas, such as social medicine etc., aren't the definition of microeconomic based theories shoved onto a macroeconomic playing field.. I don't know what is.
The concept of social medicine only works when the group has the authority to cut out non equal contributors. Considering, 51% of US citizens are on some form of social programs, not to mention the ineffectiveness of bureaucracies and legislation or the reality that personal responsibility is not only ignored but laughed at in modern society... that's a simple impossibility in the real world. See: Every social program in the country headed by the federal government..
