Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: EPA might 'slash' Ethanol in gas

  1. #46
    Old man in the mountains osbornk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Marion VA-In the middle of some of the best riding in the country.
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by kantuckid View Post
    I have read that we in USA, have the highest priced sugar in the world-so a lot politically will have to give to make real headway on that type fuel-BTW,the Brazilian version is not the kind you eat.
    A big cause is sugar tariffs and quotas:

    If sugar quotas were eliminated, and American consumers and business had been able to purchase 100% their sugar in 2009 at the world price in 2009 (average of 22.1 cents per pound) instead of the average U.S. price of 38.1 cents, they would have saved almost $2.5 billion. In other words, forcing Americans to pay 38.1 cents for inefficiently produced beet sugar instead of 22.1 cents for efficiently produced cane sugar, costs Americans an additional 16 cents per pound for the 15.4 billion pounds of American sugar produced annually, which translates to almost $2.5 billion. (Note: This is an estimate based on the assumptions that: a) the amount of sugar consumed in the U.S. and b) world prices, wouldn't change.)

    Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.
    'You can say what you want about the South, but I almost never hear of anyone wanting to retire to the North.

  2. #47
    Benchwrenching PGlaves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    "Big Bend" TX
    Posts
    8,648
    Quote Originally Posted by osbornk View Post

    Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.
    That's what they say every time we ship / lose jobs overseas. Our national interest includes more than getting the cheapest thing every time. Pretty soon we can all buy all the cheapest stuff with our unemployment checks - Oh wait, where do those checks cove from if we ship all the jobs to the cheapest place??

    Free trade seems to be a one-way street, to me.
    Paul Glaves - "Big Bend", Texas U.S.A
    "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution." - Bertrand Russell
    http://www.bigbend.net/users/glaves

  3. #48
    Administrator 20774's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    12,896
    Quote Originally Posted by EMSimon View Post
    Maybe it would help, to point out exactly how a thread got "off track" and violated the posting guidelines when such is being determined by the Admin.
    Uh, can you now see how we are pretty far off track?? We're not talking about sugar subsidies and jobs going overseas. A bit far from the original post methinks!!

    Anymore off track and this will be headed for the barn!

    Admin out!
    Kurt -- Forum Administrator ---> Resources and Links Thread <---
    '78 R100/7 & '69 R69S & '52 R25/2
    mine-ineye-deatheah-pielayah-jooa-kalayus. oolah-minane-hay-meeriah-kal-oyus-algay-a-thaykin', buddy!

  4. #49
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by osbornk View Post
    A big cause is sugar tariffs and quotas:

    If sugar quotas were eliminated, and American consumers and business had been able to purchase 100% their sugar in 2009 at the world price in 2009 (average of 22.1 cents per pound) instead of the average U.S. price of 38.1 cents, they would have saved almost $2.5 billion. In other words, forcing Americans to pay 38.1 cents for inefficiently produced beet sugar instead of 22.1 cents for efficiently produced cane sugar, costs Americans an additional 16 cents per pound for the 15.4 billion pounds of American sugar produced annually, which translates to almost $2.5 billion. (Note: This is an estimate based on the assumptions that: a) the amount of sugar consumed in the U.S. and b) world prices, wouldn't change.)

    Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.
    Those cane sugar quota and tariffs were aimed at a fellow named Castro that had a cash crop called sugar. When other countries, like Canada, dropped their tariffs, many of our bakeries and confectioners (i.e., Hershey) moved production to Canada and export to the US.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  5. #50
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by PGlaves View Post
    That's what they say every time we ship / lose jobs overseas. Our national interest includes more than getting the cheapest thing every time. Pretty soon we can all buy all the cheapest stuff with our unemployment checks - Oh wait, where do those checks cove from if we ship all the jobs to the cheapest place??

    Free trade seems to be a one-way street, to me.
    Paul,

    When was the last time you heard an American CEO claim that his American team develops and builds the best product in the world? It's just not important to the MBA set.

    Jon
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  6. #51
    No longer a member here
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by 20774 View Post
    Uh, can you now see how we are pretty far off track?? We're not talking about sugar subsidies and jobs going overseas. A bit far from the original post methinks!!

    Anymore off track and this will be headed for the barn!

    Admin out!
    I guess you saw this coming As I usually do not participate in political discussions in non-political forums, I will leave this here table also.

  7. #52
    Registered User lkchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    When was the last time you heard an American CEO claim that his American team develops and builds the best product in the world? It's just not important to the MBA set.
    Rather than smear a particular group, why not post the more accurate statement that it's just not important to lots of customers. (See "cheapest thing on a BMW.")

    "Best product in the world" is limited to luxury goods, don't you think?
    Kent Christensen
    21482
    '12 R1200RT, '02 R1100S, '84 R80G/S

  8. #53
    not so retired henzilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    between SanAntone & the Weird Place, TX
    Posts
    5,923
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    "Best product in the world" is limited to luxury goods, don't you think?
    Oh, I don't know...toilet paper falls in there somewhere
    Steve Henson
    SABMWRA MOA Club#62's Flat Fixer/ current forum moderator
    It's not the breaths you take, but the moments that take your breath away-D.Dillon/G. Strait

  9. #54
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by henzilla View Post
    Oh, I don't know...toilet paper falls in there somewhere
    Notice how thin the 1000-sheet stuff is these days?
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  10. #55
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,642
    Quote Originally Posted by lkchris View Post
    Rather than smear a particular group, why not post the more accurate statement that it's just not important to lots of customers. (See "cheapest thing on a BMW.")

    "Best product in the world" is limited to luxury goods, don't you think?
    Sorry, I can't go there with you. I started working in the large industrial equipment segment of the economy. It really meant something when you watched the 20 to 33-ft rotors and scroll casings being built for the largest hydro-electric dams across the world.

    That isn't a luxury good. It's the type of pure raw equipment that powers a nation and a modern world.

    BTW - the German gov't invests heavily in maintaining a lead in many such industries.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •