"Oil is NOT a fossil fuel"
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
- Status
How much does the land cost to keep that grass on?
Cow's also get larger, faster on corn and other feed. This keeps prices down.
Not to say it's a perfect system, but it does provide more quality meat in less time at a lower cost.
Fair article of the good and bad:
http://maukamakai.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/cattle-corn-and-finishing-school/
Cow's also get larger, faster on corn and other feed. This keeps prices down.
Not to say it's a perfect system, but it does provide more quality meat in less time at a lower cost.
Fair article of the good and bad:
http://maukamakai.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/cattle-corn-and-finishing-school/
Originally Posted By: Shannow
But at lower overall efficiency, you must admit.
That's a big part of the "help". It distorts the normal market mechanism. If corn and other feed were higher in price, you would probably see more cows eating grass.
Of course prices would rise...
But at lower overall efficiency, you must admit.
That's a big part of the "help". It distorts the normal market mechanism. If corn and other feed were higher in price, you would probably see more cows eating grass.
Of course prices would rise...
Fossil fuels are not what are distorting the market, subsides to corn farmers are.
Quote:
These subsidies create huge distortions. Both the fuel ethanol industry and the corn sweetener industry are industries that exist almost entirely due to the subsidy. The U.S. sugar quota / duty system inflates domestic sweetener prices by two times. High fructose corn syrup and other corn-based sweeteners, along with domestic sugar, cost twice to manufacture than international sugar does, but the quotas and duties on imported sugar assure you'll pay the extra cost. Fuel ethanol costs twice what gasoline does, but ethanol content laws in some states assure you'll pay the extra cost. The subsidy of corn and feedlot waste disposal make concentrated farming operations more competitive than they would normally be, and thus much more prevalent.
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2009/01/distortions-due-to-subsidies-and.html
How much more expensive should fossil fuels be if they are "too cheap"?
Quote:
These subsidies create huge distortions. Both the fuel ethanol industry and the corn sweetener industry are industries that exist almost entirely due to the subsidy. The U.S. sugar quota / duty system inflates domestic sweetener prices by two times. High fructose corn syrup and other corn-based sweeteners, along with domestic sugar, cost twice to manufacture than international sugar does, but the quotas and duties on imported sugar assure you'll pay the extra cost. Fuel ethanol costs twice what gasoline does, but ethanol content laws in some states assure you'll pay the extra cost. The subsidy of corn and feedlot waste disposal make concentrated farming operations more competitive than they would normally be, and thus much more prevalent.
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2009/01/distortions-due-to-subsidies-and.html
How much more expensive should fossil fuels be if they are "too cheap"?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Fossil fuels are not what are distorting the market, subsides to corn farmers are.
Quote:
These subsidies create huge distortions. Both the fuel ethanol industry and the corn sweetener industry are industries that exist almost entirely due to the subsidy. The U.S. sugar quota / duty system inflates domestic sweetener prices by two times. High fructose corn syrup and other corn-based sweeteners, along with domestic sugar, cost twice to manufacture than international sugar does, but the quotas and duties on imported sugar assure you'll pay the extra cost. Fuel ethanol costs twice what gasoline does, but ethanol content laws in some states assure you'll pay the extra cost. The subsidy of corn and feedlot waste disposal make concentrated farming operations more competitive than they would normally be, and thus much more prevalent.
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2009/01/distortions-due-to-subsidies-and.html
How much more expensive should fossil fuels be if they are "too cheap"?
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
Fossil fuels are not what are distorting the market, subsides to corn farmers are.
Quote:
These subsidies create huge distortions. Both the fuel ethanol industry and the corn sweetener industry are industries that exist almost entirely due to the subsidy. The U.S. sugar quota / duty system inflates domestic sweetener prices by two times. High fructose corn syrup and other corn-based sweeteners, along with domestic sugar, cost twice to manufacture than international sugar does, but the quotas and duties on imported sugar assure you'll pay the extra cost. Fuel ethanol costs twice what gasoline does, but ethanol content laws in some states assure you'll pay the extra cost. The subsidy of corn and feedlot waste disposal make concentrated farming operations more competitive than they would normally be, and thus much more prevalent.
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2009/01/distortions-due-to-subsidies-and.html
How much more expensive should fossil fuels be if they are "too cheap"?
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Fossil fuels are not what are distorting the market, subsides to corn farmers are.
How can a country both importing and exporting the same product (e.g. milk powder) be viable in an efficient market, unless energy is too cheap ?
We export oranges to the US, import oranges FROM the US, and pay for some South Americans to evaporate the water off their orange juice, to add it back here.
How's that rational, or conservative ?
BTW, I agree with subsidies... it's ridiculous that Cotton and Rice are grown in Oz, when there's plenty of other places that can do it better, and to buy from our northern neighbours would make ours cheaper, and improve their lot.
Fossil fuels are not what are distorting the market, subsides to corn farmers are.
How can a country both importing and exporting the same product (e.g. milk powder) be viable in an efficient market, unless energy is too cheap ?
We export oranges to the US, import oranges FROM the US, and pay for some South Americans to evaporate the water off their orange juice, to add it back here.
How's that rational, or conservative ?
BTW, I agree with subsidies... it's ridiculous that Cotton and Rice are grown in Oz, when there's plenty of other places that can do it better, and to buy from our northern neighbours would make ours cheaper, and improve their lot.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
Quote:
We export oranges to the US, import oranges FROM the US, and pay for some South Americans to evaporate the water off their orange juice, to add it back here.
Don't know without knowing all the particulars. You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
Many variables there and a good many of them will not be market driven.
We export oranges to the US, import oranges FROM the US, and pay for some South Americans to evaporate the water off their orange juice, to add it back here.
Don't know without knowing all the particulars. You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
Many variables there and a good many of them will not be market driven.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/australia.asp
Quote:
#
Australia immediately eliminated all agricultural tariffs. Australia had maintained tariffs as high as 30 percent on certain dairy products and tariffs of 4 to 5 percent on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, some grains, oilseeds and other products.
You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/australia.asp
Quote:
#
Australia immediately eliminated all agricultural tariffs. Australia had maintained tariffs as high as 30 percent on certain dairy products and tariffs of 4 to 5 percent on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, some grains, oilseeds and other products.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
i have no opinion on that, herr tempest. now back off with the hosepipe and bright lights.
how can any average joe have one? you're a research unit all on your won are you?
my observation was regarding how people and industry hurt back then when prices went up. people actually started to notice and the cost of fuel was effeting market changes (e.g. buy smaller car, trade gas guzzler, hypermile, etc).
if you had to keep beating me with a hose pipe however, i'd say we should use as little as we can.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
i have no opinion on that, herr tempest. now back off with the hosepipe and bright lights.
how can any average joe have one? you're a research unit all on your won are you?
my observation was regarding how people and industry hurt back then when prices went up. people actually started to notice and the cost of fuel was effeting market changes (e.g. buy smaller car, trade gas guzzler, hypermile, etc).
if you had to keep beating me with a hose pipe however, i'd say we should use as little as we can.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
what do you think it is, and why??
sounds like you're arguing to use all you want.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
what do you think it is, and why??
sounds like you're arguing to use all you want.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What's your target goal for depletion rate and why would you want it?
Again, The Market will only determine price. It won't necessarily allow the participants to react in a timely manner to change. Only a fool thinks that the revolution in costs will be coped with "AS NEEDED".
Anyone can figure that out. To avoid planning for that eventuality (whenever it is - it's never too early on a finite resource) is simply asking to be a fool and planning his own folly.
Again, who says reality is going to allow you the time to compensate via traditional market supply:demand processes?? This isn't something like wondering when some ELE meteor is going to strike the Earth. It's simply a time line that is accelerating every minute of every day to "not enough". The longer you stall ball with nonsensical "anti" reason ...the worse the impact will be.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What's your target goal for depletion rate and why would you want it?
Again, The Market will only determine price. It won't necessarily allow the participants to react in a timely manner to change. Only a fool thinks that the revolution in costs will be coped with "AS NEEDED".
Anyone can figure that out. To avoid planning for that eventuality (whenever it is - it's never too early on a finite resource) is simply asking to be a fool and planning his own folly.
Again, who says reality is going to allow you the time to compensate via traditional market supply:demand processes?? This isn't something like wondering when some ELE meteor is going to strike the Earth. It's simply a time line that is accelerating every minute of every day to "not enough". The longer you stall ball with nonsensical "anti" reason ...the worse the impact will be.
Quote:
i have no opinion on that, herr tempest.
Then how are you to decide if your 2 to 3 times price increase is being "effective"? You simply want to raise prices with no goal or rational? Why not increase the price 10 times? 20 times?
Begin with the end in mind. I realize that this is a black and white concept so it might be "below" the gray area thinkers here...
i have no opinion on that, herr tempest.
Then how are you to decide if your 2 to 3 times price increase is being "effective"? You simply want to raise prices with no goal or rational? Why not increase the price 10 times? 20 times?
Begin with the end in mind. I realize that this is a black and white concept so it might be "below" the gray area thinkers here...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
Use what can be found. The cheaper oil is, the more people's living standards will increase, and poverty will be reduced.
Those that wish to artificially limit oil actively want to increase poverty and reduce living standards on a global scale.
Market forces tend to drive the price of oil, within the market frame work setup by governments. To say oil is a free market is a complete fallacy as there are significant outside distortions at every level.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say about double to triple what they are now, judgung by people and industry's reactions in 2008
What is your target goal to reduce oil use by and why?
What do you think is an acceptable energy utilisation rate and why ?
Use what can be found. The cheaper oil is, the more people's living standards will increase, and poverty will be reduced.
Those that wish to artificially limit oil actively want to increase poverty and reduce living standards on a global scale.
Market forces tend to drive the price of oil, within the market frame work setup by governments. To say oil is a free market is a complete fallacy as there are significant outside distortions at every level.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/australia.asp
Quote:
#
Australia immediately eliminated all agricultural tariffs. Australia had maintained tariffs as high as 30 percent on certain dairy products and tariffs of 4 to 5 percent on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, some grains, oilseeds and other products.
A lack of tariffs is a good thing as it increases trade and lowers costs to consumers. This probably explains why you are getting shipments.
That link hardly explains everything. As I said, MANY variables. Local energy costs, local labor cost, the cost of dehydrating oranges vs. the extra cost to ship them...
I take it that you believe people are simply wasting something that costs them money for no reason?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
You have import/export (tariff), different laws, different resources available...
http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/australia.asp
Quote:
#
Australia immediately eliminated all agricultural tariffs. Australia had maintained tariffs as high as 30 percent on certain dairy products and tariffs of 4 to 5 percent on fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, some grains, oilseeds and other products.
A lack of tariffs is a good thing as it increases trade and lowers costs to consumers. This probably explains why you are getting shipments.
That link hardly explains everything. As I said, MANY variables. Local energy costs, local labor cost, the cost of dehydrating oranges vs. the extra cost to ship them...
I take it that you believe people are simply wasting something that costs them money for no reason?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
