SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Farming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (1404)6/19/2008 11:57:39 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum  Respond to of 4448
 
None in effect... I'm not arguing that. I simply say that removing the tariff is a necessary and sufficient condition to find out if Brazilian ethanol will be effective. If it is cheaper than subsidized corn ethanol either the corn based production will cease or.... the subsidy be increased ;O)

Which came first the subsidies or the tariff ? I've not found it.


The purpose of the mandate/subsidy is to support US farmers. to support US farmers in developing a viable alternate fuel source I thought ?



To: Snowshoe who wrote (1404)6/20/2008 12:00:10 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 4448
 
>>So if you scrap the tariff and allow the import of Brazilian ethanol, what is the point in keeping the mandate/subsidy?<<

To promote a fuel source where payment doesn't go directly into the pockets of our enemies. One that's plentiful, renewable and with a high ER/EI....while at the same time lowering food costs around the globe. For national security, as it were.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News