Diesel vs gas......................
OK folks, there have been a few to many diesel vs gas threads that have shall we say gone to "Hell and a hand basket"! So if all of you would put in you BEST, no flaming reasons for going gas vs diese...
Forum Discussion
So many misapplication of those articles you posted along with misconceptions.
Soy beans are not involved in ethanol production. That knocked out a few of those article links you posted. Soy is used for bodiesel, as is peanut oil, canola oil, etc. I never argued that there weren't subsidies for wind energy, biodiesel, etc. Only ethanol. And that there are no more direct subsidies for ethanol production is fact.
The old argument about corn being diverted from food for fuel is a total red herring at best, and an outright lie at worse. Of the entire annual corn crop in the U.S. 20% goes for food.. Of the 80% that remains, 40% of that goes to ethanol production. And of that corn that goes into ethanol production, 17-18 lb of high protein feed supplement comes out the back end for every bushel of corn that goes in the front door. Along with polymers and plastics. Even the insulators used on the spark plugs in gasoline engines is made from byproducts of corn ethanol production.
And if having corn being diverted to ethanol production was a problem, then corn prices would be in the stratosphere. But in fact, corn prices (inflation adjusted) are cheaper than they were in 1996. There is an overabundance of corn. No one is getting short changed on their corn bread, corn flakes, or tortillas. If the corn price would have kept up with inflation, it would be trading for $6.48 a bushel. The closing price for corn 11/30/2018 was $3.66. In April 1996, corn was trading for $4.02. So this trading food for fuel argument is pure poppycock. Economics is not that hard of a subject to understand.
the only Ethanol "subsidy" is for blender fuel pumps. that is a retail thing. Ethanol producers nor farmers sell ethanol at the retail level. Even the article from thoughtco you linked to did not even mention a subsidy. It mentioned tax breaks. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Do you get a subsidy from the government when you claim mortgage interest deduction? Does a person get a subsidy when they claim medical expense as a deduction? Of course not. They just get hit for less tax taken from them. That is all that is going on with any tax advantages the ethanol folks might get. Only those who think that everything belongs to the people of the country would think that letting either individuals or entities keep more of what they earn is a subsidy. Socialism comrade.
While one can argue a little that the Renewable Fuels Standards is some form of subsidy, there is a myriad of things that we deal with daily that can be argued the same way. Government mandates a lot of stuff in our lives that we have to pay for. Most people don't really sit back and look at how much of their money is spent on things that are mandated by government. Ethanol barely scratches the surface. If one really looks closely, most folks spend more on taxes and fees that were established to pay for the Spanish American War and WW I that are still in place than they spend on some "forced" purchasing of ethanol.
Even the article from the taxpayers for common sense, buried deep in the article, subsidies are for blender pumps and such. Again, that is not ethanol producers or farmers that get that. It is retailers who sell fuels. And in some instances it is a good thing. It allows consumers a wide selection of fuels at the same pump and they can choose what they want to buy. I frequent blender pumps exclusively. I put E85 in my vehicle, I buy ethanol free gas for my OPE, lawnmowers, and motorcycle. I get to pick and choose what I want. How is a subsidy for blender pumps such a terrible thing for the consumer?
And indeed, there is taxpayer money spent on crop insurance type of stuff. But that equates to all crops. Including the lettuce in your salad to the green beans on your plate. Crop insurance keeps the entire agriculture system stable to the benefit of all of us. A major drought or similar could wipe out many farmers of all sorts of crops. Then the food supply is negatively affected for years and years. And you think you pay higher prices now? If 20% of America's farmers were to go under in a bad year, you would be paying 5 times or more just for a loaf of bread. And the restaurant industry would probably take a major hit and put thousands of people out of work, because no one could afford the food prices and quit eating out. Livestock and poultry producers could not afford to feed their critters and be forced to sell out. Because of the crop insurance program, the agriculture sector remans relatively stable and we in America spend the lowest percentage of our income on food than anywhere else in the world.
Soy beans are not involved in ethanol production. That knocked out a few of those article links you posted. Soy is used for bodiesel, as is peanut oil, canola oil, etc. I never argued that there weren't subsidies for wind energy, biodiesel, etc. Only ethanol. And that there are no more direct subsidies for ethanol production is fact.
The old argument about corn being diverted from food for fuel is a total red herring at best, and an outright lie at worse. Of the entire annual corn crop in the U.S. 20% goes for food.. Of the 80% that remains, 40% of that goes to ethanol production. And of that corn that goes into ethanol production, 17-18 lb of high protein feed supplement comes out the back end for every bushel of corn that goes in the front door. Along with polymers and plastics. Even the insulators used on the spark plugs in gasoline engines is made from byproducts of corn ethanol production.
And if having corn being diverted to ethanol production was a problem, then corn prices would be in the stratosphere. But in fact, corn prices (inflation adjusted) are cheaper than they were in 1996. There is an overabundance of corn. No one is getting short changed on their corn bread, corn flakes, or tortillas. If the corn price would have kept up with inflation, it would be trading for $6.48 a bushel. The closing price for corn 11/30/2018 was $3.66. In April 1996, corn was trading for $4.02. So this trading food for fuel argument is pure poppycock. Economics is not that hard of a subject to understand.
the only Ethanol "subsidy" is for blender fuel pumps. that is a retail thing. Ethanol producers nor farmers sell ethanol at the retail level. Even the article from thoughtco you linked to did not even mention a subsidy. It mentioned tax breaks. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Do you get a subsidy from the government when you claim mortgage interest deduction? Does a person get a subsidy when they claim medical expense as a deduction? Of course not. They just get hit for less tax taken from them. That is all that is going on with any tax advantages the ethanol folks might get. Only those who think that everything belongs to the people of the country would think that letting either individuals or entities keep more of what they earn is a subsidy. Socialism comrade.
While one can argue a little that the Renewable Fuels Standards is some form of subsidy, there is a myriad of things that we deal with daily that can be argued the same way. Government mandates a lot of stuff in our lives that we have to pay for. Most people don't really sit back and look at how much of their money is spent on things that are mandated by government. Ethanol barely scratches the surface. If one really looks closely, most folks spend more on taxes and fees that were established to pay for the Spanish American War and WW I that are still in place than they spend on some "forced" purchasing of ethanol.
Even the article from the taxpayers for common sense, buried deep in the article, subsidies are for blender pumps and such. Again, that is not ethanol producers or farmers that get that. It is retailers who sell fuels. And in some instances it is a good thing. It allows consumers a wide selection of fuels at the same pump and they can choose what they want to buy. I frequent blender pumps exclusively. I put E85 in my vehicle, I buy ethanol free gas for my OPE, lawnmowers, and motorcycle. I get to pick and choose what I want. How is a subsidy for blender pumps such a terrible thing for the consumer?
And indeed, there is taxpayer money spent on crop insurance type of stuff. But that equates to all crops. Including the lettuce in your salad to the green beans on your plate. Crop insurance keeps the entire agriculture system stable to the benefit of all of us. A major drought or similar could wipe out many farmers of all sorts of crops. Then the food supply is negatively affected for years and years. And you think you pay higher prices now? If 20% of America's farmers were to go under in a bad year, you would be paying 5 times or more just for a loaf of bread. And the restaurant industry would probably take a major hit and put thousands of people out of work, because no one could afford the food prices and quit eating out. Livestock and poultry producers could not afford to feed their critters and be forced to sell out. Because of the crop insurance program, the agriculture sector remans relatively stable and we in America spend the lowest percentage of our income on food than anywhere else in the world.
