[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Australian made

If company XYZ makes $500m one year and $490 the next year their share price will drop.

no. investors are not that myopic. they look well into the future to see what the cash flows of the company will bring. this is why we have p/e ratios, peg ratio, etc...

[Nabisco]

Originally Posted by Jumper

The current supply and demand situation is exacerbated by the fact that there appears to be little if any "price elasticity of demand" for gasoline in the current market. For many products, there is a price point at which consumers are no longer willing to purchase and demand falls triggering a corresponding fall in prices. Currently gasoline prices appear to be relatively inelastic. Consumers have not been willing to decrease their demand for gasoline in the face of rising prices, hence a continuing lack of suppy with little market correction in the form of decreased consumption. This market environment tends to keep prices at relatively high levels and supplies tight.

As spunkles182 mentioned, not only do we import oil to be refined here, we also are importing refined GASOLINE. Very inefficient and cost ineffective.

I would be interested in getting other's opinions on Ethanol as any sort of a viable alternative for the U.S. My personal opinion is that though it works great for Brazil, we here do not have the same readily available arable land for the clutivation of Corn for ethanol production. Currently, any corn used in the production of ethanol competes against the demand for corn as foodstuffs. I think it is a blind alley for us as any sort of a significant solution. In limited quantities similar to what exists now it is a pretty good deal for farmers financially. But corn prices for all consumers will be placed under significant upward pressure if demand increases significantly for fuel ethanol.

My 2 cents.

The use of corn to make ethanol is a viable, but entirely terrible idea for the economy and the country as a whole. My senior design project in college (Im a chemical engineer) was to develop a design for a corn to ethanol plant for a real company along with a few of my classmates. The organic conversion rate is not all that hot to begin with. So you produce a lot of waste in the process, although with more capital expenses you can recycle portions of it. Something a lot of people don't know is that a farmer cannot continually plant corn on the same plot of land year after year. Corn absorbs more nutrients than it returns to the soil, draining the soil of any substance. So farmers are forced to "rotate" fields, planting vegetation that is high in nutrients that they can't sell. Instead they till that field with the new, high nutrient plants on it to re-fertilize the soil. All this craze for converting corn to ethanol is stupid. Its driving up the cost of corn (and all its by-products). Like feed for cattle, which in turn drives up the cost of milk and beef. Anyone notice that milk is $3+ a gallon now? However, since the government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol production it has taken a lot of farmers away from their normal crops and has them growing corn anywhere they can plant it for the financial reward. The end result is a sharp increase is a lot more consumer products and no lowering of gas prices. Congratulations US government. They strike again!

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Nabisco

The use of corn to make ethanol is a viable, but entirely terrible idea for the economy and the country as a whole. My senior design project in college (Im a chemical engineer) was to develop a design for a corn to ethanol plant for a real company along with a few of my classmates. The organic conversion rate is not all that hot to begin with. So you produce a lot of waste in the process, although with more capital expenses you can recycle portions of it. Something a lot of people don't know is that a farmer cannot continually plant corn on the same plot of land year after year. Corn absorbs more nutrients than it returns to the soil, draining the soil of any substance. So farmers are forced to "rotate" fields, planting vegetation that is high in nutrients that they can't sell. Instead they till that field with the new, high nutrient plants on it to re-fertilize the soil. All this craze for converting corn to ethanol is stupid. Its driving up the cost of corn (and all its by-products). Like feed for cattle, which in turn drives up the cost of milk and beef. Anyone notice that milk is $3+ a gallon now? However, since the government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol production it has taken a lot of farmers away from their normal crops and has them growing corn anywhere they can plant it for the financial reward. The end result is a sharp increase is a lot more consumer products and no lowering of gas prices. Congratulations US government. They strike again!

Ethanol crap is all about winning the Iowa primaries and getting money from the corn lobby.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ethanol crap is all about winning the Iowa primaries and getting money from the corn lobby.

I agree. its also yet another example of why social planning does not work.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

I agree. its also yet another example of why social planning does not work.

Iowa has way too much power in US politics because of its primary. Hopefully with a bunch of states making their primaries earlier as well things might even out a little bit and take away some of the power from those Iowa special interests.

Really all states shoudl have their primaries on the very same day. It would prevent one state from gaining power over any other. Currently, the later states have virtually no say at all. If a candidate doesn't do well in the first couple primaries they usually drop out entirely which means by the end the only people left anyway are ones who sucked up to the corn farmers.

If for example, Michegan had that first big primary instead, you'd see politicians offering all kinds of tax breaks, and subsidies to car manufacturers. Likewise they'd be spun in such a way as to sound like some kind of thing to help the environment or help decrease some kind of cost of living factor when in reality all they would do is boost car manufacturers' revenues and #### the average Joe over.

This is how politics works.

[Jumper]

Originally Posted by Nabisco

The use of corn to make ethanol is a viable, but entirely terrible idea for the economy and the country as a whole. My senior design project in college (Im a chemical engineer) was to develop a design for a corn to ethanol plant for a real company along with a few of my classmates. The organic conversion rate is not all that hot to begin with. So you produce a lot of waste in the process, although with more capital expenses you can recycle portions of it. Something a lot of people don't know is that a farmer cannot continually plant corn on the same plot of land year after year. Corn absorbs more nutrients than it returns to the soil, draining the soil of any substance. So farmers are forced to "rotate" fields, planting vegetation that is high in nutrients that they can't sell. Instead they till that field with the new, high nutrient plants on it to re-fertilize the soil. All this craze for converting corn to ethanol is stupid. Its driving up the cost of corn (and all its by-products). Like feed for cattle, which in turn drives up the cost of milk and beef. Anyone notice that milk is $3+ a gallon now? However, since the government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol production it has taken a lot of farmers away from their normal crops and has them growing corn anywhere they can plant it for the financial reward. The end result is a sharp increase is a lot more consumer products and no lowering of gas prices. Congratulations US government. They strike again!

We are on the same page. I concur.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

If for example, Michegan had that first big primary instead, you'd see politicians offering all kinds of tax breaks, and subsidies to car manufacturers. Likewise they'd be spun in such a way as to sound like some kind of thing to help the environment or help decrease some kind of cost of living factor when in reality all they would do is boost car manufacturers' revenues and #### the average Joe over.

they already do. look at obama...
"Mr. Obama would provide up to $3 billion to Detroit auto companies and their suppliers to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. If the companies invest in these vehicles, Mr. Obama also would offer the Detroit companies assistance in dealing with their burden of paying for current and retired workers’ health care expenses."

He also said" "The auto industry accounts for one out of every 10 jobs, the notion that we can just abandon U.S. automakers and that we won't suffer consequences throughout the economy is just nonsense." which also proves he is a moron.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Lopez said that, not Tony.

"never underestimate ... the OTHER GUY'S greeeed! HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

nice catch !

[anabolicrhino]

Yeah, that's called equillibrating supply and demand so markets clear...

Actually that's called conditioning and they teach it during the indoctrination process, so that you have a constructed system you can call the "equilibration" of supply and demand. Meanwhile the people with the real power in this world create the illusion of choice for the people who don't have any!

Actually equillibrium is a theoretical state of no uncertainty called the evenly rotating economy, and it has nothing to do with prices 'equillibrating' supply and demand. Once more you're letting your basic knowledge of the matter lead you into areas you think you know but actually don't.

Please excuse my ignorance , but could you explain how equilibrium is not related to a process that you refer to as "equilibrating supply and demand" with respect to price.

What do you mean by a theoretical state with no uncertainty?

Did you mean to say "a certain state"?

Your choice of wording makes it soundly like, there is a "theory" that is "not" uncertain.

A theory cannot be certain by definition.

Once a theory becomes "certain" it is referred to as a fact !

Prices are formed through buyer and seller interaction, not solely on one side or the other.

So prices are formed by buyer and seller interaction?

Thanks CDB, with my new found knowledge, I can actually buy stuff !

[jmh80]

Originally Posted by Nabisco

The use of corn to make ethanol is a viable, but entirely terrible idea for the economy and the country as a whole. My senior design project in college (Im a chemical engineer) was to develop a design for a corn to ethanol plant for a real company along with a few of my classmates. The organic conversion rate is not all that hot to begin with. So you produce a lot of waste in the process, although with more capital expenses you can recycle portions of it. Something a lot of people don't know is that a farmer cannot continually plant corn on the same plot of land year after year. Corn absorbs more nutrients than it returns to the soil, draining the soil of any substance. So farmers are forced to "rotate" fields, planting vegetation that is high in nutrients that they can't sell. Instead they till that field with the new, high nutrient plants on it to re-fertilize the soil. All this craze for converting corn to ethanol is stupid. Its driving up the cost of corn (and all its by-products). Like feed for cattle, which in turn drives up the cost of milk and beef. Anyone notice that milk is $3+ a gallon now? However, since the government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol production it has taken a lot of farmers away from their normal crops and has them growing corn anywhere they can plant it for the financial reward. The end result is a sharp increase is a lot more consumer products and no lowering of gas prices. Congratulations US government. They strike again!

I bees a ChE also.


BTW - EtOH sucks as a motor gasoline fuel. It's driving UP the price on my whey protein, damn it!

[Nabisco]

Rock on jmh80. ChE all the wizzay

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

nice catch !

I love that movie so much.

"You know what a Hossa is Frank? That's a pig that don't fly too straight."


Anyway, about Obama and the automakers, that's a perfect example. Don't US auto makers have most of their factories in MEXICO? Most of the car factories in the US IIRC are from foreign manufacturers like Mitsubishi, Honda, and Toyota.

Plus giving extra money to car manufacturers to "fuel efficient technology" is both a meaningless phrase, completely unenforceable, and would occur anyway due to market pressure. They don't need extra money to compete, the Japanese do it just fine without subsidies and built way better cars. You give a car company extra money you know where it goes? It turns into a giant bonus for the top executives. Awesome. Real productive. And of course those bonuses ar ebeing paid for by the US tax payer. Awesome again.


You know though there is one thing I've learned. There isn't much point in trying to fight this. Which is why I've created a small section of my company to try to lobby congress to give MY company some subsidies and grants. If successful they have the potential to bring in a whole lotta revenue.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Actually that's called conditioning and they teach it during the indoctrination process, so that you have a constructed system you can call the "equilibration" of supply and demand. Meanwhile the people with the real power in this world create the illusion of choice for the people who don't have any!

This is borderline theosophic bs.

[b]Please excuse my ignorance , but could you explain how equilibrium is not related to a process that you refer to as "equilibrating supply and demand" with respect to price.

Equillibrium does not nor will it ever exist. It is a theoretical construct in which no uncertainty exists. As such no money exists. All surplus productivity is spent or saved/invested to come due and be converted perfectly when needed into a consumption good. It's used mainly as a mental tool to help people distinguish between interest/capital returns and profit, which doesn't actually exist under equillibrium conditions.

Price equlibration is just a name for the process by which prices either rise or fall so markets can clear. It's not a state of being, it's a continuous process of feedback from the various factors that affect prices to maximize effeciency on the part of production. Surpluses and shortages mean wasted resources within and without a specific process of production respectively. Those wastes don't benefit anyone.

What do you mean by a theoretical state with no uncertainty?

I mean just that, a theoretical state in which all outcomes are known in advance. As stated above, it's a construct used to differentiate between the capitalist process of saving and investment which leads to interest/returns, and profits which can't exist without uncertainty.

Thanks CDB, with my new found knowledge, I can actually buy stuff !

Well apparently you think otherwise given your statement above implying there is no choice.

[UHCougar05]

Originally Posted by Nabisco

Rock on jmh80. ChE all the wizzay

You Chem-Es are nuts, I should know...I used to be one. Cal 3 and Organic 1 cured me of that.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by CDB

This is borderline theosophic bs.



Equillibrium does not nor will it ever exist. It is a theoretical construct in which no uncertainty exists. As such no money exists. All surplus productivity is spent or saved/invested to come due and be converted perfectly when needed into a consumption good. It's used mainly as a mental tool to help people distinguish between interest/capital returns and profit, which doesn't actually exist under equillibrium conditions.

Price equlibration is just a name for the process by which prices either rise or fall so markets can clear. It's not a state of being, it's a continuous process of feedback from the various factors that affect prices to maximize effeciency on the part of production. Surpluses and shortages mean wasted resources within and without a specific process of production respectively. Those wastes don't benefit anyone.



I mean just that, a theoretical state in which all outcomes are known in advance. As stated above, it's a construct used to differentiate between the capitalist process of saving and investment which leads to interest/returns, and profits which can't exist without uncertainty.



Well apparently you think otherwise given your statement above implying there is no choice.

I don't mean to seem incredulous but your first paragraph admonishes me for being theosophic, but then you go on about how there is a "theoretical construct" that exists withing our economy, that is used to moderate the capitalist process!

You can't have it both ways!

Which do you truly believe is there a free economy or is there a "theoretical construct" which we are told is a "free" economy, as I suggested in my post?

I expect a certain amount of ambiguity when reading your posts , but this is a direct contradiction in terms!

Please, just a little clarity for the 4th of July !