This sounds like a conspiracy theory

[bigrobbierob]

:blink:

I just saw on the news where food prices went up an average of 5% last year due to corn shortages caused by increased demand for things such as ethanol.

The corn farmers have planted 7% LESS this year than last. :fool2:

That means a bigger shortage and higher prices. :aargh:

Me thinks someone is gouging.

The question is...who?

It just kills me...everyone is complaining but the people that can fix it, don't out of greed. There has to be a social responsibility.

them-> :nutkick:<-us

Keep gouging...eventually no one will be able to afford your sh1t. Some people barely can now. Like me.

 

[Nightwanderer]

I think the problem is is that major industries know the avg. consumer isn't aware of how every little facet of a certain product's economy works, and they use that to their advantage.

If they say there's a shotage because of reason X, most of us won't know that it can be easily counterbalanced with method Y, etc, etc, so as long as they throw out some credible sounding statistic about more demand and less supply, most people will just go along with it.

 

[ManBeast]

I've always thought that the oil companies have a custom-made magic 8-ball thingy that they use to determine why they are raising prices yet again, maybe someone in the agricultural industry is making one as we speak...

MB

 

[arizonanewbie]

Also, they just said on the news yesterday that California fruit growers are p1ssed that prices were so LOW last year that they're gonna cut down a bunch of orchards and start growing something else, like almonds. People all over the world starve and we CUT DOWN FRUIT ORCHARDS?

 

[bigrobbierob]

My own post reminded me of something I heard years ago and had to find...

Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh (1787)-

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage


Yup...sounds familiar....

That's why the founders wanted a Republic and not a Democracy.

 

[ManBeast]

We *are* a republic technically if you look at things like the electoral college.

MB

 

[stxnas]

^^^Just had that discussion the other day with some friends...and oddly enough, my wife was asking me how long Rome was a "super power" before it collapsed (it's odd b/c my wife is an English teacher and she makes fun of me talking about stuff like that).

 

[ManBeast]

my girlfriend is a political science major with a minor in anthropology... I just hate politics more and more each day, LOL.

MB

 

[bigrobbierob]

We *are* a republic technically if you look at things like the electoral college.

MB

Actuallly I cringe whenever I hear people call it a democracy and talk as if it's a good thing. The founders knew it was a corruptable system where eventually the corrupt would assume power and control.

 

[ManBeast]

I agree, it is sad

MB

 

[Lacradocious]

Why should other foods cost more just because of a shortage of Corn? There are much better foods than corn out there anyway.

 

[bigrobbierob]

Why should other foods cost more just because of a shortage of Corn? There are much better foods than corn out there anyway.

Corn's used in a lot of things. Cereals will go up. Corn is used for feed for farm animals so meat will go up. It's used in flours so baked goods go up. The evil known as High Fructose Corn Syrup is in just about everything now day, thus everything goes up.

It snowballs.

My friends....this may be the beginning of the end.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The ending of what? The US cushion of cheap gas and food that you've had for decades while the rest of the world pays more?

Its a global market now where currencies, commodities, etc...are traded 24/7 electronically and the integration of global markets becomes deeper and deeper. Your prices will reflect global demand now, not just domestic demand.

 

[EasyEJL]

Also, they just said on the news yesterday that California fruit growers are p1ssed that prices were so LOW last year that they're gonna cut down a bunch of orchards and start growing something else, like almonds. People all over the world starve and we CUT DOWN FRUIT ORCHARDS?

people all over the world starve because they can't afford to buy the food. us cutting down orchards won't change that, because shipping oranges from california to ethiopia isn't cost effective.

 

[Kristofer68SS]

My own post reminded me of something I heard years ago and had to find...

Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh (1787)-

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage


Yup...sounds familiar....

That's why the founders wanted a Republic and not a Democracy.

Your getting closer to the truth..

First and Foremost. We are definately NOT a democracy. The proposed idea of a choice, does not define democracy. It describes "the matrix", which most of this country is living in. As far as our electorals or general election go, we are more of a socialist or communist then a democracy. (2000 election)

As far as a Republic goes, Fine. Heres a definition. But since the constitution and the bill of rights means zilch anymore, i dont consider us a republic either.

"The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate."


Can you say Facism...... That is what we are. Look around.

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."

Go ahead and repeat, because we are indeed a facist country.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[bigrobbierob]

The ending of what?

Meaning a democracy's life span is roughly 200 years and we (the US) have entered the final stages....somewhere along stages 7 or 8 from my previous post.

 

[ManBeast]

Note to self: Keep the spare ammo close and the shotgun closer.

-MB

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Meaning a democracy's life span is roughly 200 years and we (the US) have entered the final stages....somewhere along stages 7 or 8 from my previous post.

Riiiight....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Note to self: Keep the spare ammo close and the shotgun closer.

-MB

Yeah, have fun doing that.

 

[ManBeast]

LOL, I already do with the neighborhood I'm living in, hopefully I can relax a bit when I'm done moving.

MB

 

[Dadof2]

This is one of the reasons that I enjoy this forum so much, it isn't populated with dumbasses. I don't think you will generally find the quality of post that can be found inside this thread outside of a pretty good political forum. This thread proves yet another facet of supremacy between the bodybuilder and the average person.

 

[thesinner]

So I am producing LESS volumes, in hopes of making a greater profit margin, WITHOUT knowing whether my competators are doing the same?

According to your post, 7% less volumes have made for 5% increased price in corn byproducts. How's this price gouging?

I am just trying to follow the logic here.

 

[EasyEJL]

The corn farmers have planted 7% LESS this year than last.

where did that statistic come from?

 

[thesinner]

where did that statistic come from?

96.372% of all statistics posted on the internet are either made up or rumored via someone who made them up or calculated them totally wrong. :lol:

 

[Chad]

96.372% of all statistics posted on the internet are either made up or rumored via someone who made them up or calculated them totally wrong. :lol:

its the fcuking eskimos i tell you!!!!! they think they are so sneaking but im on to em!!!!!

 

[Lacradocious]

I had read a while back that demand for corn was higher because of the push for using ethanol.

 

[thesinner]

I had read a while back that demand for corn was higher because of the push for using ethanol.

There's no economic feasibility for using corn to produce ethanol. That's part of the reason why E85 is so damn expensive.

 

[DougMan]

There's no economic feasibility for using corn to produce ethanol. That's part of the reason why E85 is so damn expensive.

And that is with government subsidies. Ethanol is a perfect example of a government idea gone wrong. I find it staggering how unaware people (not you, just the general public at large) are of unintended consequences. I am sure the push will be for more mandates and subsidies to increase its use, thus increasing demand and making food more expensive. Doesn't matter, as long as people continue to ignore the weakness of the dollar energy/food and any other commodities will continue to expensive. That is not a conspiracy, that is just economics.

Fortunately, it looks like the dollar weakness is starting to get some attention. Bernake mentioned it a couple of times in his testimony to Congress today. But it is hard to believe the government will cut spending or raise taxes anytime soon which he suggested (He likes the euphemism "fiscal discipline").

Personally, I think the government/the fed is going to try to inflate away our problems with the housing crisis. After all, houses don't decrease in price as fast is inflation rises at 5-10% a year. If housing prices can't come down, perhaps the prices of everything else can go up. It seems like I am not the only one with this idea given the exchange rate on the dollar.

 

[bigrobbierob]

where did that statistic come from?

I saw it on the news on TV the other day. Here's a MSNBC story about it. This story says 8% less corn was planted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23879136/[enter%20URL]

So I am producing LESS volumes, in hopes of making a greater profit margin, WITHOUT knowing whether my competators are doing the same?

According to your post, 7% less volumes have made for 5% increased price in corn byproducts. How's this price gouging?

I am just trying to follow the logic here.

My feeling is if we have a shortage and the ability to make more, then do so. I'm not against making a profit, but it should be tempered with a degree of social responsibility.

 

[EasyEJL]

ah so it was a typical "quote only what suits your own hypothesis" quote . heres the whole thing

Farmers are expected to plant 86 million acres of corn this year, the Department of Agriculture predicted Monday, down 8 percent from 2007, when the amount of corn planted was the highest since World War II. The decreased supply could drive corn prices even higher — a cost for food producers that could be passed on to consumers.

According to the Agriculture Department, corn planting is expected to remain at historically high levels but could be down this year because of the high expense of growing corn and favorable prices for other crops, such as soybeans.

As many farmers have made that switch, soybean planting is expected to be up 18 percent this year, at almost 75 million acres. The largest increases in soybean planting are expected in Iowa and Nebraska.

so sure, its down 8%, but thats vs a 60 year high in 2007, so still historically at the high end of corn production, and soybean planting will make up the space as its become more valuable. Not sure I see the conspiracy in farmers wanting to dedicate their land to what will make the most money.

 

[thesinner]

My feeling is if we have a shortage and the ability to make more, then do so. I'm not against making a profit, but it should be tempered with a degree of social responsibility.

The issue with your logic is that increased volumes will increase profit. If economists really think E85 is causing an increased demand for corn, greater volumes are a much better alternative for increased profit, and not doing the exact opposite.

The issue comes with capacity and whoever the guy is who figured out these statistics. Are we so naive to think all the corn farmers of America all came together and said, "Hey guys, just so we're clear, we all agree to plant 7% less corn this year."

Hell, if that did happen, I'd sell out the other farmers, plant 7% MORE crop, and make a killing. Probably buy a fur coat (but not a real one, that's cruel).

I would imagine this statistic is due to
-bad statistician work. 7% is barely significant.
-decreased capacity (more volumes = more work = someone's gotta be doing that work, and I'm tired!)

I'd imagine the majority of this price gouging is due to E85, similar to the way that Gas Prices took a jump during Katrina and the War on Iraq. There's no actual change in volumes, but an excuse that's plausible enough to use as an excuse to increase the price.

 

[bigrobbierob]

ah so it was a typical "quote only what suits your own hypothesis" quote .

Not really. Like I said, I originally saw it on TV. That link was just what popped up when I googled "7%" "corn planted"

And if 2007 was "high", it still wasn't enough (demand was greater than supply). And we're planting less.

Keep in mind the gov does pay farmers not to grow crops. Would it be so hard for the gov to tell them to go ahead and grow corn this year just to keep food prices in check?

 

[Kristofer68SS]

Take the 7% statistic for what its worth. No more no less. In all reality, it means squat to this gas guzzling cog.

As far as E85 goes, we need more technology. More filling stations and more incentive....which will all come.

True. E85 is not as efficient as gas, however the benefits are reaped from the tailpipe and not the wallet, not yet....... And thats the trouble in paradise.

We shall see what this 09' Administration in the white house does for going green.........


I will highlight in red, where the initial thread went wrong.

"I just saw on the news where food prices went up an average of 5% last year due to corn shortages caused by increased demand for things such as ethanol."

Food prices went up because of transit costs(diesel fuel, not E85 demand)......... Plain and simple.

 

[EasyEJL]

Not really. Like I said, I originally saw it on TV. That link was just what popped up when I googled "7%" "corn planted"

And if 2007 was "high", it still wasn't enough (demand was greater than supply). And we're planting less.

Keep in mind the gov does pay farmers not to grow crops. Would it be so hard for the gov to tell them to go ahead and grow corn this year just to keep food prices in check?

They are planting 7% less corn because they are planting 18% more soybeans. Thats because soybeans generate more profit than corn. where is the problem with that?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Its increase in demand. The industrialization of China and India is causing people that once were farmers to move into urban areas and take higher paying jobs. The amount of crops form China and India in terms of production is going down. They have a major crop inflation problem and have been buying massive amounts of wheat and soybeans (from us and South America) which in turn creates a greater demand which in turn causes farmer to allocate more land to these higher paying crops therefore prices in all of them go up. Couple that with the ethanol subsidies and there is your answer. Its simple economics so that grand conspiracy is coming form your everyday farmer in Iowa trying to make more money. Instead of MSNBC, watch CNBC and read the crop reports on cbot.com

Commidities are also a flight to safety for financial institutions when traditional stocks are taking a beating because of a slow down or recession. This causes the prices to go up even higher until they move their money back into more traditional stocks. The same thing is happening with precious metals (gold, silver, platinum) but I guess we aren't worried about that conspiracy :lol:

 

[AM07]

I've always thought that the oil companies have a custom-made magic 8-ball thingy that they use to determine why they are raising prices yet again, maybe someone in the agricultural industry is making one as we speak...

MB

The oil companies make 8 cents on the gallon, while the government makes 48 cents on the gallon through taxes.

Who do you think is the one to blame for the high prices? Not only does the government collect high taxes on gasoline, but the damn environmentalist shitheads won't allow new refineries to be built, and they won't allow drilling in key places in the U.S., no matter how much the oil companies ask. Did you know that there is enough oil in the Dakotas to rid our dependence on foreign oil?? But you won't hear about this because the environmentalists (liberals) push so hard for no drilling there, or Alaska, or Gulf of Mexico, or in the Colorado Rockies (LOTS of oil here as well), etc.

Price of food is going up because the government thought it would be a good idea to start using more ethanol to solve the short-term problem or high gas prices, when in fact all that did was raise the price of everything else. We Americans have such short memories and only think of the present. We never think of the future, which is why the government never gets anything done, and why many Americans lack any common sense.

 

[EasyEJL]

I wish the environmental special interest groups (I really want to say something like "whiny fags and hippies") would just let us build nuclear plants. rebuild the US power grid some, put a bunch of nukes in to remove coal + gas/oil fired generation plants, and allow for hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to be made. The last part only relates because with a better US wide power grid and cheap electricity we can build hydrogen refueling stations that use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water locally, and not have to even transport fuel anymore.

 

[thesinner]

I wish the environmental special interest groups (I really want to say something like "whiny fags and hippies") would just let us build nuclear plants. rebuild the US power grid some, put a bunch of nukes in to remove coal + gas/oil fired generation plants, and allow for hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to be made. The last part only relates because with a better US wide power grid and cheap electricity we can build hydrogen refueling stations that use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water locally, and not have to even transport fuel anymore.

But Nukes are sooooo dangerous.

I mean look at Three Mile Island. The nuclear meltdown gave off about as many millirem as a carton of cigarettes. We can't have that, can we?

Chernobyl was a fluke, due to faulty and eccentric design, it was only a matter of time before that sucker blew. This was the only nuke of said design ever built.

The deciding factor, however, is that fossil fuel burning power plants require a **** ton less capital and maintenance.

 

[EasyEJL]

But Nukes are sooooo dangerous.

I mean look at Three Mile Island. The nuclear meltdown gave off about as many millirem as a carton of cigarettes. We can't have that, can we?

Chernobyl was a fluke, due to faulty and eccentric design, it was only a matter of time before that sucker blew. This was the only nuke of said design ever built.

The deciding factor, however, is that fossil fuel burning power plants require a **** ton less capital and maintenance.

actually I think chernobyl's main problem was lack of maintenance after the collapse of the USSR. lucky it lasted as long as it did.

In the long run tho, on a cost per kilowatt nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels. Its just that we don't need to set up new fossil fuel generation plants, they are already there, so initial costs are long ago covered on most of em

 

[thesinner]

actually I think chernobyl's main problem was lack of maintenance after the collapse of the USSR. lucky it lasted as long as it did.

They had a really screwy and eccentric cooling system for when the Uranium bars got too hot. Too much steam pressure built up, and the reactor blew up. A lot of people confuse Chernobyl with a nuclear meltdown, but what actually happened was a steam explosion took out the reactor. Chernobyl was more like a dirty bomb.

In the long run tho, on a cost per kilowatt nuclear is cheaper than fossil fuels. Its just that we don't need to set up new fossil fuel generation plants, they are already there, so initial costs are long ago covered on most of em

Yes yes. This issue is the intial costs, though. They're trying to build a new power plant in Pennsylvania right now that burns old tires. It's cheap as hell!

Also keep in mind that they are trying to make the "P" word (profit). In order to make profit, you initial costs have gotta be paid for. Funding puts stops a lot of good things from happening...... a lot of things.

 

[AM07]

Liberals claim they are all for making the world a better place, they complain about high gas prices, high food prices, when they are the CAUSES of everything that's ****ed up with this country!

90% of the energy in France is powered by nuclear energy. Do you hear about the French dying left and right from radiation?? NO. Did you know that the amount of waste a nuclear facility produces in one year is the equivalent of the amount of waste that could fill up the bed of a pickup? A coal plant produces more waste in one day than many nuclear facilities would in a half century! But I thought the liberals are so worried about the fallacy known as global warming, and they're so worried about the environment, blah blah blah.

See, they don't care for anything. They're environmentalist bullshit is the reason why thousands of Africans died and continue to die each year (DDP). All liberals care for is the fall of America.

 

[thesinner]

Chillax AM07,

Let's not generalize a group of people. Liberals is an even broader group than the democrats. Aside from that, I think lobbyists are only part of the problem.

Also keep in mind that powering 90% of France is not nearly the same as powering 90% of the United States. It's probably closer to powering 90% of New York. While we can point fingers, the big issue is whether or not you want to go through the trouble of building one. In order for **** to go down, you need some motivation. Right now, there's not enough motivation to go through the trouble of building a nuke. End of story.

 

[AM07]

I'm not referring to Democrats. I know a lot of good Democrats that have conservative and liberal beliefs. I even agree with some liberal beliefs. I'm referring to the shitheads who think they can save the world and environment with their bullshit lies.

 

[Iron Warrior]

I wish the environmental special interest groups (I really want to say something like "whiny fags and hippies") would just let us build nuclear plants. rebuild the US power grid some, put a bunch of nukes in to remove coal + gas/oil fired generation plants, and allow for hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to be made. The last part only relates because with a better US wide power grid and cheap electricity we can build hydrogen refueling stations that use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water locally, and not have to even transport fuel anymore.

And have controlled fires by the fire departments in order to prevent massive wild fires like the one we had in San Diego last year. It's all these Sierra club elitists who think that nature should be left alone. Guess what ? Nature can fvckin kill us ! Nature isn't your best friend all the time LOL. Rant over. In the words of Cartman "Damn hippies".

 

[ManBeast]

Amen on the nature isn't always your friend thing... tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, monsoons, yeah... good f*ckin times!

MB

 

[thesinner]

c'mon now guys. I mean, if we're gonna blame anyone, let's blame Newfoundland, Canada. I mean, it's probably not any of the fault of the like 4 people who live there, but at least it gives them some publicity.

 

[BodyWizard]

Chernobyl was a fluke, due to faulty and eccentric design, it was only a matter of time before that sucker blew. This was the only nuke of said design ever built.

Interesting: I remember following this in the news at the time (perhaps more closely than some), but I recall it was in fact a General Electric design, and is perhaps the most common design among older plants world-wide (and this has been backed up by my contacts in the nuclear industry). I do remember that internal GE memos were turned up that indicated there were flaws in the design, and from the dates of the memos, they apparently continued to sell them after becoming aware of the flaw.

Not saying that flaw caused the Chernobyl incident; not saying all the other plants of that design are "going postal" anytime soon; not saying you don't remember things differently.

 

[BodyWizard]

Once again, the impact of oil prices is being dismissed.

Much (if not most) of the fertilizer used in US farming involves petrochemicals; and as the price of a barrel of oil goes up, so does the cost of a ton of fertilizer, and every penny of increase gets passed on to the consumer.

Ditto w/ transportation costs: for almost all my life, diesel fuel has been significantly cheaper than gas fuel; today, diesel is significantly higher. That may not hit me directly, I don't buy diesel - but I DO buy groceries, and virtually all food in the US is delivered by diesel-burning truck, whether locally, or coast-to-coast. Many of those trucks are driven by owner-operators, who are being squeezed at the pump on the one end, and by the trucking companies who use the o-os as de-facto contractors-without-contract.

Both ways, the cost of corn, and the cost of everything made from corn, is substantially increased by the recent rise ing oil prices.

 

[thesinner]

Interesting: I remember following this in the news at the time (perhaps more closely than some), but I recall it was in fact a General Electric design, and is perhaps the most common design among older plants world-wide (and this has been backed up by my contacts in the nuclear industry). I do remember that internal GE memos were turned up that indicated there were flaws in the design, and from the dates of the memos, they apparently continued to sell them after becoming aware of the flaw.

Not saying that flaw caused the Chernobyl incident; not saying all the other plants of that design are "going postal" anytime soon; not saying you don't remember things differently.

Hmmm. You could have been right, if you were referring to the time it happened; however, all of the current nukes function under a slightly different design. There are also a few different things which went wrong with Chernobyl, so maybe we are thinking of a different design error. I'm talking about their control rod system. I can't remember what it was like, but after seeing the Chernobyl system versus the modern day system, I remembered that Chernobyl's was really eccentric, while the modern system was actually much more simplified and easier to manage.

The issue had something to do with managing the control rods. Nuclear fission reactions are crazy because they function under positive feedback. (since this is a bodybuilding board) when a person injects themselves with testosterone, they face negative feedback and produce less testosterone. When a nuclear fission reaction takes place, it produces "reactor poisons" which accelerate the reaction, and make the rod really freaking hot.

 

[BodyWizard]

I'm sure I once heard what the flaw was, but I'm just as sure I forgot :rofl:

I remember there was some debate about whether or not the Soviets had modified the design, how major/extensive the mods might have been, & whether or not such mods were responsible, but it all turned out, I believe, to be moot because of the limitations placed on investigators by the radiation levels. They ended up sealing it as best they could, closing it of, and going away.

Last I heard, the Chernobyl region was virtually depopulated.