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.

Non-Tech : $2 or higher gas - Can ethanol make a comeback? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (9)	10/14/2004 1:16:35 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2801

A negative look at the economics of ethanol as a fuel news.cornell.edu Some counter arguments upei.ca

To: TimF who wrote (9)	10/14/2004 1:27:35 AM
From: richardred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2801

Tim: I think incentives should be offered to get it started. Then phased out, as volume, along with demand, brings down the price to compete on its own. RR

To: TimF who wrote (9)	10/16/2004 1:03:39 PM
From: richardred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2801

Tim: is this a reason why you don't support Gov't intervention? According to a study by the right-wing think-tank the Cato Institute, at least 43% of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidised or protected by the American government" [3]. An excellent article in Mother Jones magazine in 1995 demonstrates that "No other U.S. company is so reliant on politicians and governments to butter its bread" [4]. It notes 3 core areas where ADM is helped along by US government programs: 1) maize subsidies - these make a relatively small contribution to ADM's finances, but with its heavy focus on processing ADM benefits (unlike Cargill) from the stability they provide in a volatile market; 2) the sugar program - by limiting US sugar production, the government keeps the price high, and so keeps customers like Coca-Cola favouring ADM's maize sweeteners over cane sugar (which they used to use); 3) ethanol subsidy - this is by far the most significant, a tax credit to producers of ethanol used as car fuel, amounting to $3.5 bn over 5 years (about half of which goes to ADM) [5]. ADM pays well to ensure the continuation of such favourable treatment. For example, in the 1992 election Andreas and his associates contributed $1.4m to party organisations and $345,000 to individual candidates; in 1994 they gave $657,000 to parties and $224,000 to individuals. In 1994, at the same time as President Clinton pushed through legislation requiring 30% of petrol sold in America's most polluted cities to contain ethanol products, he was given a $100,000 donation [6]. Other beneficiaries have included Richard Nixon and Bob Dole. A further example was revealed by Mother Jones in 1998. AARC (Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization) Corp is a venture capital firm wholly owned by the US Department of Agriculture, which aims to boost the development of "environmentally friendly" non-food products from farm and forest materials. In 1995, AARC Corp.'s then chairman, Martin Andreas, was found to have steered $2.4 million in research money to ADM projects or business interest [7]. Martin was a senior vice president of ADM and a nephew of Dwayne Andreas,. The Centre for Responsive Politics reports that in the 1997/98 election cycle, ADM paid $200,500 to federal candidates (53% Republican, 47% Democrats), in 1999/2000 so far (as at 1/6/00) $142,000 (49% Democrats, 51% Republicans). As for contributions to parties, in 1997-1998 it was $518 000 (51% Democrat Party, 49% Republican Party), and so far in 1999/2000 has paid $245,000 to the Republican and $50,000 to the Democrat Party[8]. In 1993, Dwayne Andreas and his wife, Inez, were among 10 individuals who agreed to pay civil fines for exceeding campaign contribution limits in the 1988 campaign [9].