[SEL] Corn-gas a BUST!

[JIM KIRKES]

Hi Rob,

It was a general statement, I know that sugar cane is not 
viable here in the US.  I wonder how sugar beets would do, 
anbody know?

Jim

Jim and Diane Kirkes
Hemet, CA
jd.kirkes at verizon.net
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Skinner" <rskinner at rustyiron.com>
To: "The SEL email discussion list" 
<sel at lists.stationary-engine.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [SEL] Corn-gas a BUST!



On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:10 PM, JIM KIRKES wrote:

> Sugar cane has a much higher yield than corn and so gets a
> better deal for the consumer.  Corn is a loser sugar cane
> just might come out ahead.

Except, Jim, that sugar cane is artificially and 
prohibitively
expensive in the United States.  In an act of FARMER 
WELFARE,
Congress has placed quotas and tariffs on sugar, driving the 
prices
through the roof.



Should we trade at all
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 25, 2006


There are only a handful of products that Americans import 
that
cannot be produced at home and therefore create jobs for 
Americans.
Let's look at a few of them.

We import cocoa from Ghana and coffee from African and Latin 
American
countries. We import saffron from Spain and India and 
cinnamon from
Sri Lanka. In fact, India produces 86 percent of the world 
tonnage of
spices. There's absolutely no reason these products cannot 
be
produced by Americans, and we could be cocoa, coffee and 
spices
independent.

You say, "Williams, that's crazy! We don't have the climate 
and soil
conditions to produce those products. Many spices, for 
example,
require a moist tropical environment." No problem. We have 
the
technology whereby we can simulate both the soil and weather
conditions. We could build greenhouses in which to grow 
cinnamon
trees and get our scientists to create the same soil 
conditions that
exist in Sri Lanka. Greenhouses could also be built to 
simulate the
climate conditions in Africa and Latin America to grow cocoa 
and
coffee. In the case of cocoa, the greenhouses would have to 
be
Superdome size to accommodate trees as high as 50 feet.

You say, "Williams, that's still crazy! Imagine the high 
costs and
the higher product prices of your crazy scheme." I say, 
"Aha, you're
getting the picture."

There are several nearly self-evident factors about our 
being cocoa,
coffee and spices independent. Without a doubt, there would 
be job
creation in our cocoa, coffee and spices industries, but 
consumers
would pay a much higher price than they currently do. 
Therefore,
nearly 300 million American consumers would be worse off, 
having to
pay those higher prices or doing without, but those with the 
new jobs
would be better off.

So let's be honest with ourselves. Why do we choose to 
import cocoa,
coffee and spices rather than produce them ourselves? The 
answer is
that it is cheaper to do so. That means we enjoy a higher 
standard of
living than if we tried to produce them ourselves. If we can 
enjoy,
say, coffee, at a cheaper price than producing it ourselves, 
we have
more money left over to buy other goods. That principle not 
only
applies to cocoa, coffee and spices. It's a general 
principle: If a
good can be purchased more cheaply abroad, we enjoy a higher 
standard
of living by trading than we would by producing it 
ourselves.

No one denies that international trade has unpleasant 
consequences
for some workers. They have to find other jobs that might 
not pay as
much, but should we protect those jobs through trade 
restrictions?
The Washington-based Institute for International Economics 
has
assembled data that might help with the answer. Tariffs and 
quotas on
imported sugar saved 2,261 jobs during the 1990s. As a 
result of
those restrictions, the average household pays $21 more per 
year for
sugar. The total cost, nationally, sums to $826,000 for each 
job
saved. Trade restrictions on luggage saved 226 jobs and cost
consumers $1.2 million in higher prices for each job saved.
Restrictions on apparel and textiles saved 168,786 jobs at a 
cost of
nearly $200,000 for each job saved.

You might wonder how it is possible for, say, the sugar 
industry to
rip off consumers. After all, consumers are far more 
numerous than
sugar workers and sugar bosses. It's easy. A lot is at stake 
for
those in the sugar industry, workers and bosses. They 
dedicate huge
resources to pressure Congress into enacting trade 
restrictions. But
how many of us consumers will devote the same resources to 
unseat a
congressman who voted for sugar restrictions that forced us 
to pay
$21 more for the sugar our family uses? It's the problem of 
visible
beneficiaries of trade restrictions, sugar workers and 
bosses,
gaining at the expense of invisible victims -- sugar 
consumers. We
might think of it as congressional price-gouging.





_______________________________________________
SEL mailing list
SEL at lists.stationary-engine.com
http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/sel


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.31/1031 - Release 
Date: 9/26/2007 12:12 PM