Fiscal cliff impact on milk prices

[canndo]

" Originally Posted by Fungus Gnat Government subsidies encourage overproduction and availability. Without that the "free market" gravatates to artificial shortages to increase profitability"

No it doesn't. I doubt you will put up any proof of this since that would be a mighty feat.

No it doesn't? really? You don't think that Gnat is right? Government subsidies don't encourage overproduction and the free market never ever produces artificial shortages?

 

[Totoe]

For an artificial shortage, see also; DeBeer's diamond cartel.

 

[Totoe]

For over production, see also; American commoditization of corn and soy.

 

[NoDrama]

No it doesn't? really? You don't think that Gnat is right? Government subsidies don't encourage overproduction and the free market never ever produces artificial shortages?

The government subsidizes corn, yet all the corn that is harvested will be sold and used. No large increase in corn over demand, in fact demand is overpowering supply at the moment. That's why corn costs so much.

Some of the price movements are due to drought, but they don't really grow that much corn in Texas anyway.

If government took away the corn subsidy and allowed fuel manufacturers to do away with ethanol you would see the price of corn fall because it would mainly go back to being used as food for animals. The free market doesn't create artificial anything. Government does that. The free market creates proper supply demand ratios that change constantly due to economic and weather conditions. Next year the government wants to create an extra 180 Million gallons of ethanol over what it created this year.

 

[NoDrama]

For over production, see also; American commoditization of corn and soy.

They use 100% of all the corn and soy produced, ALL OF IT!! Which means it isn't being overproduced. In fact there isn't enough corn being produced, hence the high prices.

Corn and Soy have always been commodities, always, since the beginning of time. America didn't turn them into commodities.

 

[NoDrama]

For an artificial shortage, see also; DeBeer's diamond cartel.

That isn't artificial for the most part, only in the world of jewelry. Most diamonds are not used in jewelry.

 

[Totoe]

The reason that all the corn and soy is used is because scientists figured out ways to shoehorn the goddamn crops into every food imaginable. It is really a manufactured need. The monsanto corn and soy beans you grow are more than likely the inedible varieties that must be refined in order to be used for human consumption. Of course, I am speculating as I do not know for sure which varieties you grow, but the odds are in favor of you not growing sweet corn and edamame. Overproduction of these various crops is what led to scientists figuring out all sorts of ways to use the crops.

 

[canndo]

The government subsidizes corn, yet all the corn that is harvested will be sold and used. No large increase in corn over demand, in fact demand is overpowering supply at the moment. That's why corn costs so much.

Some of the price movements are due to drought, but they don't really grow that much corn in Texas anyway.

If government took away the corn subsidy and allowed fuel manufacturers to do away with ethanol you would see the price of corn fall because it would mainly go back to being used as food for animals. The free market doesn't create artificial anything. Government does that. The free market creates proper supply demand ratios that change constantly due to economic and weather conditions. Next year the government wants to create an extra 180 Million gallons of ethanol over what it created this year.

You are still talkikng about absolutes here NoDrama - as though what Gnat says is not true because one time and one commodity is not being overproduced. government subsidies tend to increase production - is that more palatable to you? Free markets would love to create shortages because scarcity tends to increase real or perceived value if demand remains constant. - or something like that.

 

[Totoe]

That isn't artificial for the most part, only in the world of jewelry. Most diamonds are not used in jewelry.

It is artificial, gem quality diamonds are the ones to which I refer. Industrial diamons are in no short supply, and are easily made in a lab.

 

[cannabineer]

It is artificial, gem quality diamonds are the ones to which I refer. Industrial diamons are in no short supply, and are easily made in a lab.

It's not all that easy or cheap, and provides a natural price floor for abrasive diamond.

I am also curious as to what you mean by "inedible" Monsanto cultivars. Link? (to something not a propaganda blog?) cn

 

[canndo]

It is artificial, gem quality diamonds are the ones to which I refer. Industrial diamons are in no short supply, and are easily made in a lab.

Although debeers no longer maintains a dominant cartel, agreements limit the release of gem quality stones and so the price is kept artificialy high. Were any of the participants to flood the market with diamonds the price of diamond would plumet. I recall actually believing that my mother's high quality stones had some true value. I recall that she paid upwards of ten thousand dollars for some of her stones - and she knew what she was doing, purchasing stones and then having them custom set. After she died I went to sell the jewelery and when none of it sold on consignment I shopped the stones around - they were worth at most a thousand or so each. Only the emeralds retained any semblance of the value. Even high quality diamonds are worth considerably less than most people who have never tried to sell them believe. Diamonds are not a girl's best friend - emeralds are - and that is because of the realtive scarcity of emeralds as compared to diamonds. I posted before that one has to wonder how any retail outlet can offer sales of 80 percent off unless . . . they are actually going out of business or they are seeing a profit margine of 90 percent.

 

[Totoe]

Although debeers no longer maintains a dominant cartel, agreements limit the release of gem quality stones and so the price is kept artificialy high. Were any of the participants to flood the market with diamonds the price of diamond would plumet. I recall actually believing that my mother's high quality stones had some true value. I recall that she paid upwards of ten thousand dollars for some of her stones - and she knew what she was doing, purchasing stones and then having them custom set. After she died I went to sell the jewelery and when none of it sold on consignment I shopped the stones around - they were worth at most a thousand or so each. Only the emeralds retained any semblance of the value. Even high quality diamonds are worth considerably less than most people who have never tried to sell them believe. Diamonds are not a girl's best friend - emeralds are - and that is because of the realtive scarcity of emeralds as compared to diamonds. I posted before that one has to wonder how any retail outlet can offer sales of 80 percent off unless . . . they are actually going out of business or they are seeing a profit margine of 90 percent.

Don't rubies and saphires do well on stone price as well?

 

[NoDrama]

You are still talkikng about absolutes here NoDrama - as though what Gnat says is not true because one time and one commodity is not being overproduced. government subsidies tend to increase production - is that more palatable to you? Free markets would love to create shortages because scarcity tends to increase real or perceived value if demand remains constant. - or something like that.

Supply/Demand If no one wants your product it matters not how short in supply it is. For you to sell one damn thing there has to be demand. Government subsidies create that demand. Government creates huge demand all the time so that it can line the pockets of politicians and bankers. Corn has traditionally been a stock feed for animals, in fact my grandmother came over from Europe at age 26 and she had never once seen people eat corn until she got to the US. Corn was always food for animals in her neck of the woods. Now its an inefficient fuel source and when broken up creates a great filler for shit you wouldn't normally eat if it weren't for the packaging.

There is like two farmers in this whole state who don't grow Monsanto products, and they are bankrupt. Monsanto OWNS parts of the market and can do whatever it wants. Almost every one of the past CEO's of Monsanto are now in Federal Government as regulators to those markets.

Know what else the government subsidizes? Food. period. With 47% of the population getting food stamps which can only be spent on food that there creates artificial demand, because otherwise people would go without or only eat basic stuff. If there were no food stamps there would not be as many producers of food since demand would be less. Free market is THE MOST EFFICIENT method, government tampering always causes a bigger problem in the end than what was solved in the beginning.

If Government didn't subsidize corn, I wouldn't grow it. This has traditionally been wheat growing country and half my equipment sits idle because it can't be used in the corn rows. You would see prices of all sorts of food stuffs fall due to lessened demand for corn. You wouldn't see prices rise unless some kind of anomaly in the weather happened causing a true shortage.

 

[Totoe]

It's not all that easy or cheap, and provides a natural price floor for abrasive diamond.

I am also curious as to what you mean by "inedible" Monsanto cultivars. Link? (to something not a propaganda blog?) cn

I may have misspoke somewhat about the easy and cheap part, but it is a very cost effective alternative to going to remote places and mining them out with human labor, such as that diamond crater in Siberia that was all the rage for a week maybe a year ago. (google if you have other questions about that)

By inedible cultivars, I mean species of plant that are not produced for human consumption (in a field to table, direct manner) and do not taste very good. Just cause I like you bear, I will even link to Monsanto's website, where they even specify what certain species are to be used for.
http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/processor-preferred.aspx - This is for ethanol production, does not taste like corn bought at the store.
http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/corn-seeds.aspx various corn seeds, the uses, etc.

 

[Saltrock]

Supply/Demand If no one wants your product it matters not how short in supply it is. For you to sell one damn thing there has to be demand. Government subsidies create that demand. Government creates huge demand all the time so that it can line the pockets of politicians and bankers. Corn has traditionally been a stock feed for animals, in fact my grandmother came over from Europe at age 26 and she had never once seen people eat corn until she got to the US. Corn was always food for animals in her neck of the woods. Now its an inefficient fuel source and when broken up creates a great filler for shit you wouldn't normally eat if it weren't for the packaging.

There is like two farmers in this whole state who don't grow Monsanto products, and they are bankrupt. Monsanto OWNS parts of the market and can do whatever it wants. Almost every one of the past CEO's of Monsanto are now in Federal Government as regulators to those markets.

Know what else the government subsidizes? Food. period. With 47% of the population getting food stamps which can only be spent on food that there creates artificial demand, because otherwise people would go without or only eat basic stuff. If there were no food stamps there would not be as many producers of food since demand would be less. Free market is THE MOST EFFICIENT method, government tampering always causes a bigger problem in the end than what was solved in the beginning.

If Government didn't subsidize corn, I wouldn't grow it. This has traditionally been wheat growing country and half my equipment sits idle because it can't be used in the corn rows. You would see prices of all sorts of food stuffs fall due to lessened demand for corn. You wouldn't see prices rise unless some kind of anomaly in the weather happened causing a true shortage.

So why do you grow corn? Is it the most bang for your buck? Are their any other types of crops that would compare in revenue? Does the government subsidize any other organics? I heard soy beans are popular they have multi-applications. Is growing wheat the least labor intensive out of most crops?

Peace
Salt

 

[NoDrama]

So why do you grow corn? Is it the most bang for your buck? Are their any other types of crops that would compare in revenue? Does the government subsidize any other organics? I heard soy beans are popular they have multi-applications. Is growing wheat the least labor intensive out of most crops?

Peace
Salt

It pays more.
Most bang for the buck, it pays the most.
Soy could possibly beat it, but my land isn't the greatest for soy as it is for corn.
Gvt subsidizes all food crops through the food stamp program
Wheat is not the least labor intensive, the climate where I am at is near perfect for wheat. With wheat I don't have to irrigate near as much as I do with Corn. But the demand for Corn is twice that of wheat since 70% of all corn grown gets turned into Fuel.

 

[Harrekin]

It pays more.
Most bang for the buck, it pays the most.
Soy could possibly beat it, but my land isn't the greatest for soy as it is for corn.
Gvt subsidizes all food crops through the food stamp program
Wheat is not the least labor intensive, the climate where I am at is near perfect for wheat. With wheat I don't have to irrigate near as much as I do with Corn. But the demand for Corn is twice that of wheat since 70% of all corn grown gets turned into Fuel.

Damn that evil, corrupt, "statist", big Government.

 

[NoDrama]

Damn that evil, corrupt, "statist", big Government.

Eaten any Potatoes lately?

 

[Harrekin]

Eaten any Potatoes lately?

Sure who hasn't?

 

[cannabineer]

Although debeers no longer maintains a dominant cartel, agreements limit the release of gem quality stones and so the price is kept artificialy high. Were any of the participants to flood the market with diamonds the price of diamond would plumet. I recall actually believing that my mother's high quality stones had some true value. I recall that she paid upwards of ten thousand dollars for some of her stones - and she knew what she was doing, purchasing stones and then having them custom set. After she died I went to sell the jewelery and when none of it sold on consignment I shopped the stones around - they were worth at most a thousand or so each. Only the emeralds retained any semblance of the value. Even high quality diamonds are worth considerably less than most people who have never tried to sell them believe. Diamonds are not a girl's best friend - emeralds are - and that is because of the realtive scarcity of emeralds as compared to diamonds. I posted before that one has to wonder how any retail outlet can offer sales of 80 percent off unless . . . they are actually going out of business or they are seeing a profit margine of 90 percent.

I remember once looking high&low for the used diamond market. I cannot find it! cn