On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote:

We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products
being purchased that are made in China.

And you always want people to buy Korean.

For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total
world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%.
Thus far.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote:

We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products
being purchased that are made in China.

And you always want people to buy Korean.

For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total
world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%.
Thus far.
======================
All trade is not equal.

It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is.

A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little
employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a
billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and
volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a
foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are
imported.

A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items.

An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is
not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment,
knowledge-base and methodology. Export/import on this basis is
thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter]
in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future.

Uncle George

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:58:11 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote:

We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products
being purchased that are made in China.

And you always want people to buy Korean.

For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total
world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%.
Thus far.
======================
All trade is not equal.

It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is.

A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little
employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a
billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and
volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a
foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are
imported.

As the usual claims are that imports to the US have high labor
content (from low wage labor) .....

A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items.

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.

An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is
not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment,
knowledge-base and methodology.

The US exports waste paper, scrapmetal (the machines
we used to make things with) and arms.

Export/import on this basis is
thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter]
in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future.

The US imports lots of disposable stuff.

If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.
--
Cliff

I would agree except for this...

"A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items. "

When there is no food on the table, having not made the investment in
agricultural production shows the ignorance of this thinking.

Having a sufficient agricultural base allows a manufacturing base to
develop and thrive...not the other way around...ask anyone who has ever
had to go hungry whether they would choose a sandwich or an Ipod.

TMT

On 1 Jan 2006 15:43:25 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I would agree except for this...

"A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items. "

When there is no food on the table, having not made the investment in
agricultural production shows the ignorance of this thinking.

Having a sufficient agricultural base allows a manufacturing base to
develop and thrive...not the other way around...ask anyone who has ever
had to go hungry whether they would choose a sandwich or an Ipod.

TMT
This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the
fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the
area of North America currently called the United States will
become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007.

Sandwich v. Ipod
It all depends how you ask the question.

If it is my Ipod or your sandwich that's one answer, my Ipod and
my sandwich will be another answer. Unfortunately the most
likely answer is "I'll kick yo' a**, eat yo' sandwich and take
yo' Ipod."

Even with "balanced" trade i.e. no current accounts trade
deficit, a nation can still wind up with no viable manufacturing
infrastructure and firmly gripped by the short and curlies.

Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no
such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Uncle George

"This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the
fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the
area of North America currently called the United States will
become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007. "

I know that you weren't implying the lack of importance of the ag
sector...but many people forget this fact until SHTF. Your correct
observation of the United States becoming a net food importer indicates
that our policy makers have.

Sandwich v. Ipod
It all depends how you ask the question.
If it is my Ipod or your sandwich that's one answer, my Ipod and
my sandwich will be another answer. Unfortunately the most
likely answer is "I'll kick yo' a**, eat yo' sandwich and take
yo' Ipod."
Even with "balanced" trade i.e. no current accounts trade
deficit, a nation can still wind up with no viable manufacturing
infrastructure and firmly gripped by the short and curlies.
Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no
such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Uncle George "

Your observations concerning how a nation can have a "manufacturing
brain drain" which is hard if not sometimes impossible to recover from
is also correct. Outsourcing your labor and manufacturing to other
countries means your own population soon does not have the capability
or income to compete on a global stage.

The fact that we are seeing both occurring, especially during the time
of war, speaks volumes as to where this Administration's true loyalties
lie.

Considering that we have just had a hard reminder that this country
still does not have an energy policy for self independence after 30
years since the Arab embargo is an example of where the United States
is headed.

Reliance on other countries for food, energy and manufacturing are all
growing indications that the United States is backsliding to Third
World status.

Our Founding Fathers have got to be spinning in their graves....

TMT

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 20:43:21 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

Note to Cliff -- reread the 1st law of thermodynamics there is no
such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

??
--
Cliff

On 1 Jan 2006 21:58:13 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

Considering that we have just had a hard reminder that this country
still does not have an energy policy for self independence after 30
years since the Arab embargo is an example of where the United States
is headed.

You missed the neocon/Cheney secret plan?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33642
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml
--
Cliff

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.



No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.



No it's not...


Yes it is....


No it's not....


Yes it is...

No it's not.



OK, my comment was last. I win!

Dave Lyon wrote:

"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...

Dave Lyon wrote:


It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.



actually, it's true.




No it's not...


Yes it is....


No it's not....


Yes it is...

No it's not.



OK, my comment was last. I win!



as you wish

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.

You can find it if you dig through the DOE white papers. Grain-based ethanol
passed the zero point of net energy gain in the mid-'90s, IIRC. Cellulosic
ethanol is considerably better. And solar cells passed the zero point by
1990.

It's hard to find good energy audits, because many of the people doing them
have an axe to grind. But there are some out there that appear to be pretty
good.

--
Ed Huntress

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.


In the articles that I've read, that claim it requires more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields, they include the SOLAR energy required to
grow the corn.
So, technically, it is true. If you exclude the solar energy, which would
otherwise be wasted, then it is not true.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:59:44 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.



No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

You have to count all the upstream energy inputs.
US production only.
--
Cliff

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:


Dave Lyon wrote:


It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.



actually, it's true.


I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.

Huh?

--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.

The "study" that recently heated up this debated was by Patzek,

T. W. Patzek, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle,
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23(6), 519-567, 2004

A large research university library will get CRPS and here's a link
(cut and paste should work) to a .pdf of the article.
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers...Patzek-Web.pdf

The first part of the paper shows (given certain assumptions) that the
energy from fossil fuel used in growing X amount of corn to make
ethanol is greater than the energy value of the ethanol produced.

There is an agenda to the paper, but the results are not surprising.
There is a reason no one has gotten rich making ethanol without
government subsidies.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.

You can find it if you dig through the DOE white papers. Grain-based
ethanol
passed the zero point of net energy gain in the mid-'90s, IIRC. Cellulosic
ethanol is considerably better. And solar cells passed the zero point by
1990.

It's hard to find good energy audits, because many of the people doing
them
have an axe to grind. But there are some out there that appear to be
pretty
good.

Here's a link to a presentation that touches on the subject:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf

See page 21. As might be expected there is considerable difference of
opinion on the subject of net energy balance for ethanol.

Mike

Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.

Does any one every wonder how the time of posting of Mr Lyons posts on
the survival net is 7:59 AM 2 Jan 2006 yet the time that he posted it to
the isp was 15:44.59 GMT on 2 Jan 2006. Since their is a difference in
time and the isp date time group is GMT and not EST,or CST, or MST or
PST I would suspect that Mr Lyons IS ANOTHER LYING ****ING FOREIGNER.



--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:51:52 GMT, "Dave Lyon"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:39:12 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.


actually, it's true.

I've read that is takes more energy to make ethanol than
ethanol provides, which wouldn't be too surprising. I
really doubt that it takes more OIL energy to make ethanol
that ethanol provides. I would like to see some proof of
that claim.


In the articles that I've read, that claim it requires more energy to
produce ethanol than it yields, they include the SOLAR energy required to
grow the corn.
So, technically, it is true. If you exclude the solar energy, which would
otherwise be wasted, then it is not true.

Including solar energy seems to be a bit lame.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

dazed and confuzzed wrote:
Dave Lyon wrote:
"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.
No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.
Only wingers believe it.
actually, it's true.
No it's not...
Yes it is....
No it's not....
Yes it is...
No it's not.
OK, my comment was last. I win!
as you wish

OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.???
...lew...

F. George McDuffee wrote in
:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:20:28 -0500, Cliff
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2005 20:30:15 -0800, "jon_banquer"
wrote:

We have very little practical choice when it comes to some products
being purchased that are made in China.

And you always want people to buy Korean.

For all the noise China seems to have a total share of the total
world international trade .... of only about 6 to 8%.
Thus far.
======================
All trade is not equal.

It depends greatly which 6 to 8 % it is.

A billion dollars of commodity items that generate little
employment and are low value added exported, cannot offset a
billion dollars of items that generate high [both level and
volume] employment, that are high value added, and provide a
foundation infrastructure/methodology improvements, that are
imported.

The it's a good thing that the US is the worlds largest exporter. If you
look up the figures we are in the top five in most all of the so called
value added. The most notable exceptions are automotive and computers.


A glance at the input-output matrixes points up how little
activity/wealth is generated within an economy by the production
of a billion dollars worth of agricultural products and how much
is generated by the production of a billion dollars worth of high
tech / high value added items.

Diversification is not a bad thing either. Agriculture adds quite a bit to
the economy. Plus it improves relations with countries that need the food.
We lead the world in aerospace exports.


An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is
not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment,
knowledge-base and methodology. Export/import on this basis is
thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter]
in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future.

China is barely a blip on the radar in value added manufacturing. Look
through the stats. The EU mations, Germany in particular, along with Japan
are our biggest competitors in the global marketplace. Instead of fretting
about imports of underwear and cell phones from China, we should be asking
why do we keep our markets wide open to countries like Germany and Japan.

The two largest imports into the US are Petroleum in it's various forms and
passenger vehicles. The worlds largest exporter of passenger vehicles is
Germany followed by Japan. The US is way down the list behind the UK.
That's right, the UK now exports more autos than the US.

Machine tools, machine parts, plastics, etc. Japan and Germany lead the
world. The interesting thing is that they don't buy very many low cost low
quality machine tools like we do here. They are also high wage/benefit/cost
countries. In general they spend more on automation than we do, they also
have thousands of bull**** little ways to keep our goods out of their
countries. Neither of them have very good economies either.

Our situation could improve dramatically if the US automotive industry
could get it's act together.

Here is a list of commodities that the US was the number one exporter in
the world in 2004:

MEAT
WHEAT
MAIZE
CEREAL GRAINS
CEREAL MEAL/FLOUR
ANIMAL FEED
EDIBLE PRODUCTS N.E.S.
HIDE/SKIN (EX FUR) RAW
OIL SEEDS ETC - SOFT
RUBBER SYNTH/WASTE/ETC
COTTON
WORN CLOTHING ETC
OTHER CRUDE MINERALS
FERROUS WASTE/SCRAP (interestingly we are the 8th largest importer)
NF BASE METAL WASTE NES
PRECIOUS METAL ORE/CONC.
RESIDUAL PETROL. PRODS
ANIMAL OIL/FAT
HYDROCARBONS/DERIVATIVES
ALCOHOLS/PHENOLS/DERIVS
CARBOXYLIC ACID COMPOUND
NITROGEN FUNCTION COMPDS
OTHER ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
RADIO-ACTIVE ETC MATRIAL
PHARMACEUT EXC MEDICAMNT
POLYACETALS/POLYESTERS..
PLASTIC WASTE/SCRAP
EXPLOSIVES/PYROTECHNICS
OIL ETC ADDITIVES/FLUIDS
ENGINES NON-ELECTRIC
CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANT
MEDICAL ETC EL DIAG EQUI
AIRCRAFT/SPACECRAFT/ETC
MEDICAL/ETC INSTRUMENTS
MEASURE/CONTROL APP NES
ARMS AND AMMUNITION
GOLD NON-MONETARY EX ORE

This list really isn't very indicitive of the whole picture as we are
number 2,3,4,5 in loads of categories. The stats also don't reflect
services which are also a huge value added source of exports for the US.
Here is a list of US exports by commodity. You can click on any of them to
see where we stand vs. other mations.

http://www.intracen.org/tradstat/sitc3-3d/er842.htm


--

Dan

Cliff wrote in newsnpgr113barlkpekouafl7p9su04lgvs7p@
4ax.com:

An additional problem is that capital compounds, even if it is
not in the form of money but rather in machines, equipment,
knowledge-base and methodology.

The US exports waste paper, scrapmetal (the machines
we used to make things with) and arms.

Along with aerospace, engines, food, medicine, surgical appliances/
instruments/devices. Loads of chemicals. A fair amount of steel and other
metal alloys. Manufactured goods. Software. Music and movies. Etc. Etc.


Export/import on this basis is
thus not only a losing proposition [for the commodity exporter]
in the current quarter, but for the indefinite future.

The US imports lots of disposable stuff.

Mostly oil which is expended not disposed. Second to oil is passenger cars
which are disposed of and sold for scrap metal.


If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.

We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't have
enough of either to be independent of other nations.

The other nations would miss us when they got sick, hungry, attacked by
their neighbor, needed software, needed a safe investment, wanted a market
to sell in, etc..


--

Dan

Lew Hartswick wrote:
dazed and confuzzed wrote:

Dave Lyon wrote:

"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...

Dave Lyon wrote:

It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.

No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.
Only wingers believe it.

actually, it's true.

No it's not...
Yes it is....
No it's not....
Yes it is...
No it's not.
OK, my comment was last. I win!

as you wish


OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.???
...lew...



http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news4942.html
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/

Hope this helps.


--
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

F. George McDuffee wrote in
:

This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the
fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the
area of North America currently called the United States will
become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007.

Mainly due to tastes and the fact that we can afford to eat imported food.
Well that and the fact that when it comes to food, most Americans show
little or no restraint.

But why buy canned veggies and fruit in the middle of winter when you can
get imported fresh ones?

Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas
and sugar. Yeah, they will grow in Florida but we eat way more than could
be grown there. Plus it's barely warm enough. Where are we going to grow
all of the coffee?

Then there are spices and foreign cuisine. Balsamic vinegar, wasabi,
truffles, mushrooms, cheeses, prepared meats, wines, beer, and all sorts of
other good stuff that we can afford to buy.

We could survive without all of it and can easily grow enough food for
everyone. But our diets would be a more dull.

--

Dan

D Murphy wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote in
:


This was not meant to imply that agriculture is not the
fundamental economic sector. Everything rests on this. FWIW the
area of North America currently called the United States will
become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007.


Mainly due to tastes and the fact that we can afford to eat imported food.
Well that and the fact that when it comes to food, most Americans show
little or no restraint.

But why buy canned veggies and fruit in the middle of winter when you can
get imported fresh ones?

Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas
and sugar. Yeah, they will grow in Florida but we eat way more than could
be grown there. Plus it's barely warm enough. Where are we going to grow
all of the coffee?

Then there are spices and foreign cuisine. Balsamic vinegar, wasabi,
truffles, mushrooms, cheeses, prepared meats, wines, beer, and all sorts of
other good stuff that we can afford to buy.

We could survive without all of it and can easily grow enough food for
everyone. But our diets would be a more dull.

Also I might add that the labor component (which is most of the price)
in the imported food is higher than the labor of our exported food. We
export a lot of meat, and grain.

When you figure the man hour cost of a bushel of wheat or a lb of beef
you find that the cost is very low compared to the man hour cost of
coffee, spices, cheese, wine etc.

I'm a part time cattle man. A lot of the cattle we have here and sell
to foreign markets are slaughtered and dressed here. The half carcass
is hung in a special shipping containers that keep the meat at 40
degrees for the shipment to foreign countrys. The beef arrives aged and
is cut up there. The cattle hides are salted and bailed here and then
sent to China, or Brazil for turning into leather. The internal organs
are cooked, dehydrated and then ground into a meal for pig food which is
then sold to pig farmers. A lot of pig food goes overseas to Asia and
China.

So when you add the animal feed that is produced to human food you will
find that we are not a net importer of food but a huge exporter of
agricultural products.

I might also point out that a lot of agricultural produce of this
country is for livestock feed. Look at the amount of alfalfa and grass
manufactured chicken feed and duck food that is sent to china and
Japan. Hell the largest market for Rocky Mountain Rainbow trout food
are the trout farms in Japan.



--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.

Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:49:36 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:



If you are going to include the solar input on Ethyl, what about the
solar input on Petro??? It comes from "green stuff" too, ultimately.

On 3 Jan 2006 02:21:32 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

The it's a good thing that the US is the worlds largest exporter. If you
look up the figures we are in the top five in most all of the so called
value added.

What value is added in all those guns, bombs, etc?
And many are given away at taxpayer expense (in the end).
--
Cliff

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 05:33:26 GMT, zadoc wrote:

Stats Economy World Trade Exports Aircraft spacecraft etc

#1 United States 38,069,900
#2 France 19,219,700
#3 Germany 16,419,400

And Airbus counts as being where?
Did I miss the UK too?
--
Cliff

On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

The other nations would miss us when they got sick, hungry, attacked by
their neighbor

Iraq.
--
Cliff

On 3 Jan 2006 02:31:03 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

If 10 nations embargoed the US the US would be
out of business quickly. They'd not miss many US exports
for long.

We'd be hurting mainly for oil and labor should that happen. We don't have
enough of either to be independent of other nations.

Critical materials are imported.
Tungsten, alloying elements, etc.
We do have a huge surplus of Uranium, from making all those
nuclear bombs.

What's in the "Strategic Stockpile"?
--
Cliff

On 3 Jan 2006 02:53:15 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Our climate can't support some of the foods we like to eat, such as bananas
and sugar.

Sugar beets ....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 19:46:46 -0800, Pope Secola VI
wrote:

I might also point out that a lot of agricultural produce of this
country is for livestock feed.

Soils are weathering/eroding away and wearing out.
In many places not much of value would grow without the chemicals
produced from oil & gas.
--
Cliff

"Pope Secola VI" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.




No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.

Only wingers believe it.

Does any one every wonder how the time of posting of Mr Lyons posts on
the survival net is 7:59 AM 2 Jan 2006 yet the time that he posted it to
the isp was 15:44.59 GMT on 2 Jan 2006. Since their is a difference in
time and the isp date time group is GMT and not EST,or CST, or MST or
PST I would suspect that Mr Lyons IS ANOTHER LYING ****ING FOREIGNER.



Foreigner? Are you suggesting that the internet is a US based item, and the
rest of the world is stealing it like you do your cable?

Lighten up.


Dave Lyon
Proudly based in the corn belt (of the US)
and too lazy to set the clock on his computer.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:05:33 GMT, zadoc wrote:

When did they start exporting the airbus?

Years ago.
http://www.airbus.com/en/
http://www.airbus.com/en/worldwide/airbus_in_uk.html
--
Cliff

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:49:36 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:



If you are going to include the solar input on Ethyl, what about the
solar input on Petro??? It comes from "green stuff" too, ultimately.

Sorry, logic is not allowed in this argument.

That's not the only place the scales are not balanced. They also include the
fuel cost to transport the corn to refineries, refine it, and distribute it,
but they don't do the same for petroleum.

If you look at dollars, it is still cheaper to use oil. If you look at the
btu cost (excluding the solar to grow the corn), corn may come out on top.

In the future, ethanol may be competitive with petroleum at the market place
even without the subsidies that it sees. Cellulous refining techniques are
helping that, but the rising cost of petroleum is having more effect.
Unfortunately, ethanol is probably not a long term solution. We simply don't
have enough crop land to supply our energy needs. There is also considerable
research in using algae grown at sea. Perhaps this will be our next great
energy source.

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
ink.net...
dazed and confuzzed wrote:
Dave Lyon wrote:
"dazed and confuzzed" wrote in message
...
Dave Lyon wrote:
It takes more oil energy to produce a gallon of grain Ethanol than
you can get back by burning same IIRC.
No it doesn't That's a lie that has been originated by oil companies.
Only wingers believe it.
actually, it's true.
No it's not...
Yes it is....
No it's not....
Yes it is...
No it's not.
OK, my comment was last. I win!
as you wish

OK Kiddies. How about some NUMBERS.???
...lew...


What fun would that be?

Check out this study. Granted, it's done by USDA, so it may be as biased as
the ones done by the oil companies.
But, it does match up a little better with what I have witnessed as the son
of a small scale farmer.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf

On the question of fossil oil as opposed to a renewable resource,
though, they may have an argument in one sense. The cost of
recovering something that occurs in nature is obviously cheaper than
trying to create it, whether you are talking about the oxygen we
breathe, the water we drink, or the silver and gold we value.



I have no argument there. For now at least, it is much cheaper to use
petroleum than ethanol.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

FWIW the
area of North America currently called the United States will
become a net food *IMPORTER* sometime in 2006 or early 2007.

Measured in terms of what? Economic value? Bulk tonnage? Calories?
Tons of protein?