Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (35758)	3/22/2004 1:12:13 AM
From: pheilman_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

< Let me take a WAG that you have never used ethanol. > Yes, but only because of government mandate. Whenever possible I purchase gasoline without ethanol added. Just this weekend I bought a tankful in Nevada. My mileage climbed to 27.7 MPG, about 20% ahead of my average of 23.3 with ethanol. Don't kid yourself, ethanol, as an oxegenating fuel additive, is a boondoggle. Who wins? ADM. They don't spend that money out of public mindedness. Who loses? Consumers. Environment. This is the way the political system is played in the US. A small group gains at the expense of a very diffuse large group. The large group could vote on the issue but the cost is so small it isn't worth the effort. The historic price for corn in 1901 has no more relevance than the historic price for gold. That price is never coming back. The farms were not quite so efficient at that time and there was a lot more labor in each kernel. California has hundreds of ghost towns around mines and the midwest has thousands of ghost towns around silos.