State of the Union :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#27 Jan 24 2007 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Ethanol lol. There's so much over mal-investment out there in ethanol plants and new ethanol IPOs pop up all the time. Too bad it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained from the use of ethanol. The government mandates it, subsidizes it, that's why it exists. But that's big government and liberals for ya, waste a buck to save a dime, create more pollution burning coal to produce ethanol, than is saved from using ethanol instead of gasoline.

That's right, ethanol is economically inefficient. If it was economically efficient it would have evolved on its own in the free market as an alternative fuel. Grow corn. Turn it into ethanol. You don't even have to drill for it. Typical S-A-P-S. And increase the price of corn, make starving people in world less able to afford food. Good job libs. Now I can't even get corn with my Burbon Chicken and potatos at the Cajun Cafe at the mall.

Oh, it reflects.

http://www.morganquitno.com/hcrank06.htm wrote:

Top ten healthiest states.
1. Vermont
2. New Hampshire
3. Minnesota
4. Maine
5. Iowa
6. Massachusetts
7. Nebraska
8. Utah
9. Connecticut
10.Hawaii

Funny, they are mostly blue states.

Let's see who's sitting at the bottom.

Quote:

40. Arizona
41. Florida
42. Alabama
42. South Carolina
44. Georgia
45. Oklahoma
46. Texas
47. Nevada
48. Louisiana
49. New Mexico
50. Mississippi

Not that this surprises me at all.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#28 Jan 24 2007 at 11:43 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Well if you're going to count illegal sand-tinas in State health why not incorporate all the 3rd world countries. I don't even know what that means, "healthiest". Can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people I would suppose. Just because it means lilly white to that site ...

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#29 Jan 24 2007 at 11:49 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Well if you're going to count illegal sand-tinas in State health why not incorporate all the 3rd world countries. I don't even know what that means, "healthiest". Can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people I would suppose. Just because it means lilly white to that site ...

Oh you're going to argue semantics? Okay, thanks for playing. Pick your consolation prize up on your way out.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#30 Jan 24 2007 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

If it was PROFITABLE, PURE & FVCKING SIMPLE, there would be absolutely no need to mandate or subsidize.

Sometimes, your lack of knowledge is charming.

The government subsidizes ethanol production to ultimately facilitate its distribution and usage throughout the nation, particularly at a consumer level.

Quote:

It's a helluva lot easier to increase the production of more corn than it is to find, drill, or import more oil.

I repeat: Sometimes your lack of knowledge is charming.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#31 Jan 24 2007 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1663546654528

Sage

3,118 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Well if you're going to count illegal sand-tinas in State health why not incorporate all the 3rd world countries. I don't even know what that means, "healthiest". Can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people I would suppose. Just because it means lilly white to that site ...

Perfect explanation as to why you never quote any real sources, you've never seen any. Put away your gossip mags and click the link. It shows rather clearly how they define where a state is being ranked. It's under 'Factors' and 'Methodology'.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#32 Jan 24 2007 at 12:01 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Why are those Top 10 States the whitest white men in America states? I've seen all sorts of similar mumbo jumbo "comparative health data" in studies galore. Maybe we could also find out those are small population States too and conclude like morons that executing people would lead to healthier States. Like health insurance has any reflection on how healthy someone is. [:roll eyes:] But yeah, if you want the Deep South to be "healthier", boot back all the illegal immigrants.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#33 Jan 24 2007 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Why are those Top 10 States the whitest white men in America states? I've seen all sorts of similar mumbo jumbo "comparative health data" in studies galore. Maybe we could also find out those are small population States too and conclude like morons that executing people would lead to healthier States. Like health insurance has any reflection on how healthy someone is. [:roll eyes:] But yeah, if you want the Deep South to be "healthier", boot back all the illegal immigrants.

Your arguement might be able to hold water if California was at the bottom ten. Which it is not.

Quote:

19. California

So if California manages to do well, with all the illegals, and is largely populated, how is it that Alabama cannot? Personally, I blame policies.

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 12:06pm by Rimesume

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#34 Jan 24 2007 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

The government subsidizes ethanol production to ultimately facilitate its distribution and usage throughout the nation, particularly at a consumer level.

LOL, why? What for? Energy is energy. Cheaper is cheaper. Cleaner is cleaner. Profitable is profitable. 38% more energy per grain of corn! What the hell does the government need to do if that was really the case? The only thing the government is facilitating is a con job enriching politically connected ethanol manufacturers. Hey STOOPID people. If it's profitable, somebody will facilitate and deliver for FREE, to make money! Who cares who the customers are, consumers at the "level" or whomever at "wherever". Duh.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#35 Jan 24 2007 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent

Yodabunny

Scholar

4,593 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Hey what's wrong with Suze Orman?

Damn right I don't need to make more than generalist claims from minimal information gleaned from the Wall Street Journal on the ethanol market. If it was PROFITABLE, PURE & FVCKING SIMPLE, there would be absolutely no need to mandate or subsidize. It's a helluva lot easier to increase the production of more corn than it is to find, drill, or import more oil. Really, sometimes, it is that easy. I buy low and sell high. Now go find me some "studies" on Gordon Gekko quotes. :P

It's profitable, just not as profitable as other uses for the land. There's also a limited market for it.

As for helping the environment there is a slight benefit. You have to take into account the amount of polution generated in production and transport.

The idea about producing it in tall buildings with artificial sunlight is just stupid. The coal you would burn to produce the electricity needed would be 1000's of times what you would get out of it. Plants only absorb something like 6% of the light energy and we probably get something like 0.1% in the form of ethanol which then pollutes further when we burn it. You'd be better off making hydrogen out of water with solar panels.

What we need to do is find an abundant source of hydrogen that doesn't require splitting up water molecules. That or some radical new way of producing energy. Antimatter :)

Note: I made up my percentages (should be close, can't quite remember) because I'm too lazy to look it up, but they should represent an accurate direction (we get crap energy for what we put in).

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 3:16pm by Yodabunny

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#36 Jan 24 2007 at 12:11 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

Your arguement might be able to hold water if California was at the bottom ten. Which it is not.

Really? I thought the only reason California wasn't in the Top 10 was because of that. So if all the illegal immigrants, instead of being booted out of the country, were relocated to California, you think California would become a healthier State? And those other bottom ten would show no improvement according to those measurements?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#37 Jan 24 2007 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Actually, demand for ethanol in the US outstrips supply which is a good part of why the government subsidizes it. Without Uncle Sam picking up part of the tab, it wouldn't be an affordably viable fuel additive.

I'm intentionally giving the story bit by bit just for the amusement of watching Monx embarass himself in his retorts Smiley: grin

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#38 Jan 24 2007 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1663546654528

Sage

3,118 posts

Quote:

Personally, I blame policies.

It's 'cause Southerners are poor an' stoopid. Public health often follows economic health.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#39 Jan 24 2007 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Jophiel wrote:

I'm intentionally giving the story bit by bit just for the amusement of watching Monx embarass himself in his retorts Smiley: grin

You're like a cat with a ball of string.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#40 Jan 24 2007 at 12:23 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Well, you'd better hope so, since your still at -1 from all the teachers teaching all the students one at a time versus one teacher teaching about 25 at a time.

But anyway, what is this "demand" you speak of? There's a lot of demand for unarmed liquor store owners from robbers too. Mandating, using violent physical force or the threat of violent physical force, does not count as market demand, no matter what the rapists say. So be sure to calaculate the amount of ethanol mandated seasonally, and annually, when you release your shocking bit by bit leaks. Quelle horror! I might even then have to search "ethanol" in the WSJ database.

It still doesn't change the simple point I've made, which of course none of you can answer, which is if it really was profitable, if it really was a source of energy, then there would be absolutely no reason for the government to waste resources mandating and subsidizing ethanol. That $hit would $ell it $elf, plain and $imple.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#41 Jan 24 2007 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

That $hit would $ell it $elf, plain and $imple.

The point is that it does.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#42 Jan 24 2007 at 12:31 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

It's profitable, just not as profitable as other uses for the land. There's also a limited market for it.

As for helping the environment there is a slight benefit. You have to take into account the amount of polution generated in production and transport.

Yodabunny was on the right track.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#43 Jan 24 2007 at 12:32 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1593362601198

View User Forum

Scholar

13,594 posts

Oh yes, because it's just the illegal immigrants (by this I'm assuming you mean the influx of illegal mexican immigrants) causing this. Sure.... it's not the poor uneducated white trash or blacks. Nope, just the nasty mexicans, right? It's not caused by the lack of school funding, the lack of general affordable health care? Do not confuse my ideals of affordable health care with free hand outs as long as you can keep spitting out children.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#44 Jan 24 2007 at 12:34 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

MonxDoT wrote:
That $hit would $ell it $elf, plain and $imple.

The point is that it does.

Then what need for the government to mandate or subsize? They didn't have to do that with oil in the ground.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#45 Jan 24 2007 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent

Yodabunny

Scholar

4,593 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Actually, demand for ethanol in the US outstrips supply which is a good part of why the government subsidizes it. Without Uncle Sam picking up part of the tab, it wouldn't be an affordably viable fuel additive.

I'm intentionally giving the story bit by bit just for the amusement of watching Monx embarass himself in his retorts Smiley: grin

hahaha, yeah I guessed Monx lived in the south, hated foreigners, probably has a couple guns in the house and lacks the ability to understand anything he can't hold onto (also known as dumb redneck yankee syndrome) after his first post in this thread.

I'm using the wrong term limited market is/isn't what I meant. The only place to sell ethanol is to the big oil/gas companies (probably through some kind of broker and I'm not including the 2-3 specialty uses for it). They will set a price and you either sell it to them at that price or don't sell it. Before you can sell it at their price you have to refine it out of the corn...or you could just sell the corn to whoever the heck you want. The subsidies give them a reason to make ethanol over other products that are equally as profitable with less fuss.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#46 Jan 24 2007 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1663546654528

Sage

3,118 posts

Totally off topic, but just making a point.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2003/R01T040.htm wrote:

Rank	State	        Percent 
	United States	12.7 
1	Louisiana	20.3 
2	D.C.            19.9 
3	Mississippi	19.9 
4	New Mexico	18.6 
5	West Virginia	18.5 
6	Kentucky	17.4 
7	Alabama	        17.1 
8	Texas	        16.3 
9	Oklahoma	16.1 
10	Arkansas	16 
11	Arizona	        15.4 
12	Montana	        14.2 
13	South Carolina	14.1 
14	North Carolina	14 
15	Oregon	        13.9 
16	Idaho	        13.8 
16	Tennessee	13.8 
18	New York	13.5 
19	California	13.4 
19	Georgia	        13.4 
21	Florida	        13.1 
22	Ohio	        12.1 
23	Missouri	11.7 
23	North Dakota	11.7 
25	Nevada	        11.5 
26	Michigan	11.4 
27	Illinois	11.3 
27	Rhode Island	11.3 
29	South Dakota	11.1 
30	Washington	11 
31	Hawaii	        10.9 
31	Pennsylvania	10.9 
33	Kansas	        10.8 
33	Nebraska	10.8 
35	Indiana	        10.6 
35	Utah	        10.6 
37	Maine	        10.5 
37	Wisconsin	10.5 
39	Iowa	        10.1 
40	Colorado	9.8 
41	Alaska	        9.7 
41	Vermont 	9.7 
41	Wyoming 	9.7 
44	Massachusetts	9.4 
45	Virginia	9 
46	Delaware	8.7 
47	New Jersey	8.4 
48	Maryland	8.2 
49	Connecticut	8.1 
50	Minnesota	7.8 
51	New Hampshire	7.7

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#47 Jan 24 2007 at 12:41 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

It's not caused by the lack of school funding, the lack of general affordable health care?

I could go on and on and on ripping government interference in the health care market as the cause of what you decry, but that should probably be another thread entirely when the situation arises.

How much does the Pentagon pay for its hammers and toilet seats? Why shouldn't you be similarly overcharged by a vast bureacracy of middlemen? Are you somehow special that it's ok for you to pay for your doctor bill by pointing a gun at the doctor's head?

Free market competition increases quality and lowers cost. Socialism decreases quality and increases cost, no matter how they hide it or ration it out of existence.

Doctors go into business like anyone else. Is anybody crying about expensive unaffordable computers? That's because the government didn't fvck up the pc-networking industry the way they fvucked up the health care industry.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#48 Jan 24 2007 at 12:43 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592343335444

2,480 posts

Quote:

hahaha, yeah I guessed Monx lived in the south

Wrong, me Flea and Joph are one big happy Chi-Town family. :P

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#49 Jan 24 2007 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1663546654528

Sage

3,118 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Quote:

hahaha, yeah I guessed Monx lived in the south

Wrong, me Flea and Joph are one big happy Chi-Town family. :P

Far as I'm concerned, Chicago is the South. Not the deep south mind you, but they still have that annoying accent.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#50 Jan 24 2007 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

MonxDoT wrote:

Quote:

It's profitable, just not as profitable as other uses for the land.

Yodabunny was on the right track.

Not entirely on that count.

Corn farmers and ethanol refineries are different entities. If corn is selling for $4 a bushel, then it's $4 a bushel. It doesn't matter if it's going towards ethanol or cattle feed or tortilla chips*. An acre of corn is worth the same amount regardless.

The other standard use for corn acrage is soy production. However, farming practices require crop rotation between corn and soy or else you get dropping yields due to soil depletion and pest management. Even if soy is worth more per bushel, it doesn't help if you take a 15% yield loss because you skipped rotations.

*We're talking 'grain' corn instead of sweet corn which isn't used in ethanol production

Edited, Jan 24th 2007 12:46pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#51 Jan 24 2007 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent

Yodabunny

Scholar

4,593 posts

MonxDoT wrote:

Quote:

hahaha, yeah I guessed Monx lived in the south

Wrong, me Flea and Joph are one big happy Chi-Town family. :P

Well I guess 3/4 ain't bad :)

▲ Page top

State of the UnionFollow