The price of corn is at all all-time high because of extreme drought conditions in the US coupled with the hottest July temperatures since records began 117 years ago.

Inane Policies

US policy mandates production of ethanol for blending in gasoline. That ethanol comes mostly from corn.

Diverting corn crops to inefficient ethanol production has members of the Group of 20 leading economies – including France, India and China – concerned about the US ethanol policy.



In response, the UN urges US to cut ethanol production

2
1
View Full Article
Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for Sitka Pacific Capital Management.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
23 Comments So Far
Sid14 Wrote: Aug 12, 2012 8:43 AM
This the price we pay for stupidly feeding our food to our cars while even more stupidly, restricting the production of oil.
Flag as Offensive
jimwg2 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 5:24 PM
Old Boy Scout wilderness survival rule; Don't burn what you can eat.
Flag as Offensive
Original Saepe__Expertus Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 4:35 PM
Fooling Them Flies

President Obama decided to do one of his public addresses against the backdrop of an American farm, but the ceremony couldn’t get started because of all the flies buzzing around his head. Obama demanded to know why the flies wouldn’t leave, so the farmer explained to him, “Well, those are called circle flies. They always circle around the back end of horses.” Obama angrily replied, “Hey, are you saying that I’m a horse’s a*s?” The farmer answered, “No Sir, Mister President. I would never call someone a horse’s a*s. It’s hard to fool them flies though.”
Flag as Offensive
woodie144 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 3:03 PM
And, by the way, I don't want to burn ethanol in my vehicles, but I am forced to by government dictate. That in itself is tyranny. Time to turn this government back to constitutional republicanism. Get rid of the leftists in both parties, or vote third party. Time to revive a constitution party which isn't insistent on Christ's teachings--as appropriate as they might be to our judicial system--as much as freedom of religion, not this current freedom from religion, with all answering to the state tyrant. We broke from England for that very reason.
Flag as Offensive
woodie144 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 2:59 PM
(continued) 2) getting oil to market (pipelines), 3) stopping environmental policies that make it so natural gas is piped back into the ground in Alaska (see online booklet "The Energy Non-crisis" by Lindsey Williams, which discusses how the environ'mental'ists, and uber left--Jimmy Carter & his fool minions--used every trick in the book to foil the oil pipeline through Alaska in the 1970's, and then told them rather than put a second pipeline atop the first for that gas, they should instead pipe it back into the wells), among other things.
Flag as Offensive
woodie144 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 2:55 PM
Stands on it? I'm not even sure he understands it's a problem. We all want farmers to do better, but is ethanol from corn the way to go? Sugar beets and cane sugar are better suited to ethanol production as attested by Brazil's switch to ethanol from cane production. Fact is, then sugar prices would rise, but would it necessarily have to? We could then eliminate tariffs imposed on cane from foreign sources, could we not? Import all the cane the ethanol producers can get, but keep hands off corn. You think the world won't be ticked off if the price to feed themselves rises drastically sue to our inconsideration of the fact that 1) we have plenty of oil here if we are willing to drill her and drill now 2) our energy policy was geared toward
Flag as Offensive
kenneth416 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 12:40 PM
Yeah, Mr. Shedlock, but look at the money being made by Archer-Daniels-Middleton and the other big agri-businesses. There are a lot of rich (large) farmers in the mid-west thanks to the Congress enacting the ethanol subsidy, accompanied by the mandate for some minimum use. Remember, these were passed and signed into law by George W. Bush. So what if your corn flakes in the morning now cost $5 per serving? I like to think that, if corn had been a better source of fuel than crude oil, old Henry Ford would have discovered it in the early 1900's and the Model T would have had a corn crib and water tank built in to provide fuel.
Flag as Offensive
woodie144 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 5:05 PM
Archer Daniel Middleton? Really? At least you could have looked up the name of the company.
Flag as Offensive
Charlotte239 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 12:10 PM
Not only that but the growth of the GMO crops are detrimental to the future of farming and to the health of people. The Norwegians have completed a 10 year study that links GMO crops to obesity, diabetes, allergies and many other health problems that we are suffering from today, they are even linked to autism and a decline in reasoning ability.
Flag as Offensive
True Conservative! Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 12:15 PM
That's sheer baloney! First, extensive use of GMO seeds has not been around for 10 years. And it's obvious there was no obesity, diabetes, or allergies until 10 years ago! You're buying some leftist bullshiit here!
Flag as Offensive
ladisney Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 11:30 AM
What do leftists stand for?
-Using food to make fuel even if the poor in other countries starve.
-Banning DDT even if millions in other countries die of malaria.
-Banning Freon even if the ban makes no difference to the environment, makes air conditioning more expensive and reduces food safety, especially in poorer countries.
-Spending TRILLIONS to combat “man made global warming” even if, according to their own predictions, it will make no appreciable difference in climate but will drastically reduce standards of living around the world.
-Banning logging, irrigation, and pipelines to protect species that don’t need protection but does put Americans out of work and increase food, fuel and wood prices.
Elections have consequences!
Flag as Offensive
indyconantidim Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 10:53 AM
OBTW

Corn in food and the gas to transport it are directly responsible for the economic mess.
Flag as Offensive
indyconantidim Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 10:52 AM
Ethanol should be shelved until January.

No use creating an issue when the so-called leader blatantly:

A) cuts jobs for a pipeline (with thousands criss-crossing the country)

B) for oil from a Canadian source (uncontrollable by American enviro-nuts)

C) that would've had an immediate effect on oil speculators (you know, the dim boogymen)
Flag as Offensive
Brencis Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 8:58 AM
...and it takes 1 unit of energy to extract 1.3 units of energy from corn. Not very bright!
Flag as Offensive
true liberal Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 8:57 AM
Romney doesn't stand for anything other than being the anti-Obama candidate.

It is easy to express what your position is but he does not want the mid-west to go against him if he comes out against ethanol handouts
Flag as Offensive
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 8:37 AM
There are a lot of problems with using ethanol as fuel that are not directly related to the subsidies. Many of the parts in modern cars and trucks have to be special made to withstand the corrosive effects it has on fuel system components. That makes your car cost more, repairs become more expensive, at they don't last as long. You can use a simple rubber hose to make a connection with straight gasoline, but ethanol eats that rubber and clogs your fuel system. Many older cars cannot withstand these corrosive effects.

Corn is for eating. Ethanol is for drinking.
Flag as Offensive
Reginald10 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 2:12 PM
And petroleum oil is for burning.
Flag as Offensive
Original Saepe__Expertus Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 7:39 AM
"The question at hand is whether the US agriculture secretary is an economic dimwit, a shill for the Obama administration, a shill for corn producers, or some combination thereof."

ANSWER? All of the above.
Flag as Offensive
RINO Detector Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 4:51 AM
The United States of Dumb. There we go. I propose yet another law changing our name to something a little more descriptive and honest.
Flag as Offensive
annfan_777 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 4:41 AM
Where does Mitt stand on anything? It's hard to tell sometimes, given his past record of flip flops and timely policy changes. But it seems like whatever the liberal Democrat position on something is, Mitt often tries to find some way of seeking common ground with that. And whatever the common sense conservative position is on something, he will invariably distance himself from that so as not to offend any 'moderates'.



Flag as Offensive
RINO Detector Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 4:53 AM
Mitt stands for Mitt like most politicos. Some of them have a spine though. His seems a bit squishy, kind of less like a tree than a Bush, lol!
Flag as Offensive
jwilson804 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 7:30 AM
And what does Obama stand for??????? Destroying this country!!!!!
Flag as Offensive
curmudgeon10 Wrote: Aug 11, 2012 11:55 AM
well said, annfan, but the primary is over. we nominated the wrong candidate, again, as usual. so now we get to choose between a squishy sometimes talks conservative, but always eager to get on with the liberal agenda romney, or a virulent hate-america muslim dedicated to the destruction of our nation. the tough choice was the primary, where we had to select among various deeply flawed candidates, and we probably chose the worst of them. now we face one more opportunity for america to chose the worst candidate, and probably will.
Flag as Offensive
New comments on this article - click to refresh