On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:29:17 -0600, Tom Veatch wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:23:51 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

You get a lot of American companies who think that
because they bother to open their doors in the morning, they deserve
success and the world will beat a path to their door because they're
Americans.

I'm wondering if a slight rewording of the sentence might contain an
equal amount of truth:

"You get a lot of American (labor) who think that
because they bother to (come to work) in the morning, they deserve
success ... ".

You're probably right, although both beliefs are fundamentally faulty.
Just because you're there doesn't mean you're going to be successful,
you still need to work hard and produce a product that people want to
buy for the price you want to sell it at. Fail in any of these
categories and you fail as a company, and as an individual.

On Nov 28, 2:08 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
[snipped for brevity]

What we really need to do is take a couple million illegals
back to the border and push them all across at once.

Can't do that... You'd lose the cheap semi-slave labour.

I watched that whole thing go down in Europe. Everybody was too good
to work as garbage men and work on the roads. So, in case of the
Dutch, they brought in Turks and such. Now there are mosques all over
the place and the Dutch are going: "WTF happened here?"
If they're not careful, it will be the Dutch who'll be lined up at the
border ready for deportation.
But the cheap labour was nice ... for a while.

There ain't nuttin' fur nuttin' and payback is always a bitch.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:45:50 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:39 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it
up.

I don't know, that is a number you pulled out of your hat. I can assure
that alcohol does not improve nor maintain gas mileage.

I do know that those lighter weight E85 vehivles that I test drove with
smaller engines had EPA gas mileage estimates that were 10 to 15% less
than the vehivle that I bought with 25-30% more hp.

That sounds reasonable for 20% or so reduction compared to gasoline for
ethanol -- 85% * 0.8 + 15% * 1 == 0.83.

--
Perhaps if the gasohol was 20% cheaper although more often than not it is
more expensive in Houston.

And that's not the real cost. Take away the subsidies (your paying
for them with your taxes) add in the 20% spike in food products that
rely on field corn for food stock (Beef,pork) in the last year, apply
all at a weighted average in your life and you get the real cost of
E85.

Account for the equivalent in subsidies and tax treatment to
petroleum-based production then, too, in order for it to be a more
nearly level playing field.

I'm not aware of directly paid subsidies. I was in that (oil and gas)
industry for twenty years prior to joining the woodworking machinery
company. Maybe I missed them.

There are tax breaks, primarily for the production of marginal wells
and tertiary recovery, but they are not directly paid subsidies,
require profitability to be relevant (not always the case) and some
depletion allowances that, I believe, are only available to small
independent producers. The big incentives ended in 1974.

As noted before, the increase in food costs is made much of and ascribed
in the popular press as owing to ethanol production but it is not so
nearly a direct correlation as that. Much is owing simply to production
costs are higher owing to (gasp, hold on now, revelation coming!) higher
petroleum costs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemical, irrigation costs are all
petroleum based and have skyrocketed if you haven't noticed. As a
simple example, it now takes almost $500 of fuel to fill the tractor
which lasts only one day during planting season.


It also was a lower
yield year owing to weather through much of corn belt

was it?

USDA Forecasts Record-Setting Corn Crop for 2007



WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2007 – U.S. farmers are expected to produce the
largest corn crop in history in 2007, according to the Crop Production
report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Corn production is forecast at
13.1 billion bushels, 10.6 percent above the previous record of 11.8
billion bushels set in 2004.

Based on conditions as of August 1, corn yields are expected to
average 152.8 bushels per acre, up 3.7 bushels from last year. This
would be second highest corn yield on record, behind the 160.4 bushels
per acre produced in 2004. Growers are expected to harvest 85.4
million acres of corn for grain, the most since 1933 and 14.8 million
more acres than last year.


Wonder how it came out? There was plenty of water in the corn belt.




I would suggest that you graph a few things on top of each other since
the incentive for E85. The price of refined diesel and other refined
petreleoum products. The price of a bushel of #2 corn. The
production of corn in total bushels/year. The amount of corn used for
feed stock and the amount diverted to the production of biofuel. And
then get a pie chart that shows the impact of energy costs as a
percentage of the total price of a pound of beef. See if you still
hold the same opinion

I've read a number of studies that agree with your point.
"Independent" studies by organizations like the corn growers
association. They're for the subsidies, imagine that. If I was a
corn grower, I would be too.

Frank

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:38:48 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Take a look at www.zapworld.com They are claiming that the technology is
here now. Crusing range of 350 miles, 1 cent per mile energy cost,
recharge
time in as little as 10 minutes, and loads of hp.
IIRC DeWalt is getting similar results from their latest batteries.

They're claiming a lot of things, they're just not doing so well in
backing up those claims. Most of what they're using are miniscule
little scooter-type vehicles that will never survive in the real
world.

Let us know when they can run cars that are already on the road with
their technology.

From what I understand, the cars have been on the road for the last 10 years
through out the world with 100,000 units sold.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:45:50 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:39 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it
up.

I don't know, that is a number you pulled out of your hat. I can assure
that alcohol does not improve nor maintain gas mileage.

I do know that those lighter weight E85 vehivles that I test drove with
smaller engines had EPA gas mileage estimates that were 10 to 15% less
than the vehivle that I bought with 25-30% more hp.

That sounds reasonable for 20% or so reduction compared to gasoline for
ethanol -- 85% * 0.8 + 15% * 1 == 0.83.

--
Perhaps if the gasohol was 20% cheaper although more often than not it is
more expensive in Houston.

And that's not the real cost. Take away the subsidies (your paying
for them with your taxes) add in the 20% spike in food products that
rely on field corn for food stock (Beef,pork) in the last year, apply
all at a weighted average in your life and you get the real cost of
E85.
Account for the equivalent in subsidies and tax treatment to
petroleum-based production then, too, in order for it to be a more
nearly level playing field.

I'm not aware of directly paid subsidies. I was in that (oil and gas)
industry for twenty years prior to joining the woodworking machinery
company. Maybe I missed them.

There are tax breaks, primarily for the production of marginal wells
and tertiary recovery, but they are not directly paid subsidies,
require profitability to be relevant (not always the case) and some
depletion allowances that, I believe, are only available to small
independent producers. The big incentives ended in 1974.
As noted before, the increase in food costs is made much of and ascribed
in the popular press as owing to ethanol production but it is not so
nearly a direct correlation as that. Much is owing simply to production
costs are higher owing to (gasp, hold on now, revelation coming!) higher
petroleum costs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemical, irrigation costs are all
petroleum based and have skyrocketed if you haven't noticed. As a
simple example, it now takes almost $500 of fuel to fill the tractor
which lasts only one day during planting season.


It also was a lower
yield year owing to weather through much of corn belt

was it?

USDA Forecasts Record-Setting Corn Crop for 2007



WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2007 – U.S. farmers are expected to produce the
largest corn crop in history in 2007, according to the Crop Production
report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Corn production is forecast at
13.1 billion bushels, 10.6 percent above the previous record of 11.8
billion bushels set in 2004.

Based on conditions as of August 1, corn yields are expected to
average 152.8 bushels per acre, up 3.7 bushels from last year. This
would be second highest corn yield on record, behind the 160.4 bushels
per acre produced in 2004. Growers are expected to harvest 85.4
million acres of corn for grain, the most since 1933 and 14.8 million
more acres than last year.


Wonder how it came out? There was plenty of water in the corn belt.

Not as good as those early forecasts -- there was _NOT_ plenty of water
in the corn belt in August thru September despite early wet springs.
The end of July is about when the rains stopped.

I would suggest that you graph a few things on top of each other since
the incentive for E85. The price of refined diesel and other refined
petreleoum products.

Diesel is an input, not an output. Correlation does _not_ imply causation.

The price of a bushel of #2 corn. The
production of corn in total bushels/year. The amount of corn used for
feed stock and the amount diverted to the production of biofuel. And
then get a pie chart that shows the impact of energy costs as a
percentage of the total price of a pound of beef. See if you still
hold the same opinion


I've read a number of studies that agree with your point.
"Independent" studies by organizations like the corn growers
association. They're for the subsidies, imagine that. If I was a
corn grower, I would be too.

Check DOE and EIA for latest work on overall energy balance. Not funded
by growers' associations.

If I were a petroleum industry maven, I'd be of your viewpoint as well.

Would you have us simply wait and rely on the oil companies to provide
all without any other efforts? That seems foolish to me (see earlier
note on the local natural gas production company advertising against
coal-fired power plant permitting applications on implication of
minimizing carbon footprint.)

IMO, a tax break indirectly is no different than a direct break. I
don't argue they should be removed from public policy for the oil
industry, I simply point out the actual cost differentials aren't as
one-side as one might like to imply and there's a lot of infrastructure
and other investment in the current petroleum distribution system that
has a lot of costs that are hidden in maintaining supplies.

We're producers, but not of corn. Wheat, milo, cattle, all dryland. So
far this year, no wheat drilled even; last decent rain was July 4th
weekend. There will be no wheat crop on much of the dryland wheat
ground next year because it's now too late even if it rained this
weekend for it to make much of a crop if it were planted now and what
little is in is in such poor condition it is unlikely to make. Last
year was a very good-looking year early but spring storms (hail,
tornados, a late freeze Easter weekend, then excessive rain through
June) destroyed a very significant fraction.

--

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:02:57 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Nov 28, 2:08 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
What we really need to do is take a couple million illegals
back to the border and push them all across at once.

Can't do that... You'd lose the cheap semi-slave labour.

Good? I've got no problem requiring American companies to follow
American labor laws. That's why they exist.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:01:35 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
.. .
Let us know when they can run cars that are already on the road with
their technology.

From what I understand, the cars have been on the road for the last 10 years
through out the world with 100,000 units sold.

Maybe I was unclear, I was talking about the same sort of cars you can
buy off any car lot in the country. Not a little 3-wheel piece of
crap, an American family car that seats 4-5 people, can carry your
groceries home, etc. That's not what they're building right now.

"dpb" wrote in message ...

We're producers, but not of corn. Wheat, milo, cattle, all dryland. So
far this year, no wheat drilled even; last decent rain was July 4th
weekend. There will be no wheat crop on much of the dryland wheat ground
next year because it's now too late even if it rained this weekend for it
to make much of a crop if it were planted now and what little is in is in
such poor condition it is unlikely to make. Last year was a very
good-looking year early but spring storms (hail, tornados, a late freeze
Easter weekend, then excessive rain through June) destroyed a very
significant fraction.

Don't know where you are but are there no varieties that can be planted
on into January? In fact, our rancher was planting varieties as late as
mid-January in recent years primarily to reduce the exposure to wintering
geese (I never thought a gaggle of geese could pack an ag field so hard).

Karnes County, Texas received more than three times it's average annual
rainfall this year, ~65 inches through the end of August. The corn was more
than a month late getting in the ground and about the same late getting
combined. It was iffy if it was even going to make it to combine, it just
did get dry enough to allow the equipment in the field.
But because of all that rain it made 84 bushels/acre vs. an average year
of 40-50 bushels/acre. And, it brought $3.30/bushel, about a dollar more
than previous years.
And now wheat is going to be a hot commodity. About six weeks ago the
price of wheat for December delivery was $9.42/bushel and that is about
double a year ago. Our lessee had to go to Comfort, Texas to lock in enough
seed which he intends to drill mid-December. Then he'll have a fight on his
hands to keep the hogs, the sandhill cranes, and the geese from helping
themselves.
Until this past weekend the rains had just about quit at the end of
August. But 2.5 inches this past Saturday and Sunday came at just the right
time. I'd rather be lucky than good.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:16:18 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:45:50 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:39 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it
up.

I don't know, that is a number you pulled out of your hat. I can assure
that alcohol does not improve nor maintain gas mileage.

I do know that those lighter weight E85 vehivles that I test drove with
smaller engines had EPA gas mileage estimates that were 10 to 15% less
than the vehivle that I bought with 25-30% more hp.

That sounds reasonable for 20% or so reduction compared to gasoline for
ethanol -- 85% * 0.8 + 15% * 1 == 0.83.

--
Perhaps if the gasohol was 20% cheaper although more often than not it is
more expensive in Houston.

And that's not the real cost. Take away the subsidies (your paying
for them with your taxes) add in the 20% spike in food products that
rely on field corn for food stock (Beef,pork) in the last year, apply
all at a weighted average in your life and you get the real cost of
E85.
Account for the equivalent in subsidies and tax treatment to
petroleum-based production then, too, in order for it to be a more
nearly level playing field.

I'm not aware of directly paid subsidies. I was in that (oil and gas)
industry for twenty years prior to joining the woodworking machinery
company. Maybe I missed them.

There are tax breaks, primarily for the production of marginal wells
and tertiary recovery, but they are not directly paid subsidies,
require profitability to be relevant (not always the case) and some
depletion allowances that, I believe, are only available to small
independent producers. The big incentives ended in 1974.
As noted before, the increase in food costs is made much of and ascribed
in the popular press as owing to ethanol production but it is not so
nearly a direct correlation as that. Much is owing simply to production
costs are higher owing to (gasp, hold on now, revelation coming!) higher
petroleum costs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemical, irrigation costs are all
petroleum based and have skyrocketed if you haven't noticed. As a
simple example, it now takes almost $500 of fuel to fill the tractor
which lasts only one day during planting season.


It also was a lower
yield year owing to weather through much of corn belt

was it?

USDA Forecasts Record-Setting Corn Crop for 2007



WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2007 – U.S. farmers are expected to produce the
largest corn crop in history in 2007, according to the Crop Production
report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Corn production is forecast at
13.1 billion bushels, 10.6 percent above the previous record of 11.8
billion bushels set in 2004.

Based on conditions as of August 1, corn yields are expected to
average 152.8 bushels per acre, up 3.7 bushels from last year. This
would be second highest corn yield on record, behind the 160.4 bushels
per acre produced in 2004. Growers are expected to harvest 85.4
million acres of corn for grain, the most since 1933 and 14.8 million
more acres than last year.


Wonder how it came out? There was plenty of water in the corn belt.

Not as good as those early forecasts -- there was _NOT_ plenty of water
in the corn belt in August thru September despite early wet springs.
The end of July is about when the rains stopped.

I don't believe August is early for field corn. However, USDA
November report is slightly better than the August forecast. Reckon
that corn is in yet?

I would suggest that you graph a few things on top of each other since
the incentive for E85. The price of refined diesel and other refined
petreleoum products.

Diesel is an input, not an output. Correlation does _not_ imply causation.

The price of a bushel of #2 corn. The
production of corn in total bushels/year. The amount of corn used for
feed stock and the amount diverted to the production of biofuel. And
then get a pie chart that shows the impact of energy costs as a
percentage of the total price of a pound of beef. See if you still
hold the same opinion


I've read a number of studies that agree with your point.
"Independent" studies by organizations like the corn growers
association. They're for the subsidies, imagine that. If I was a
corn grower, I would be too.

Check DOE and EIA for latest work on overall energy balance. Not funded
by growers' associations.

If I were a petroleum industry maven, I'd be of your viewpoint as well.

Would you have us simply wait and rely on the oil companies to provide
all without any other efforts? That seems foolish to me (see earlier
note on the local natural gas production company advertising against
coal-fired power plant permitting applications on implication of
minimizing carbon footprint.)

Didn't say that, just pretty much don't believe in government
involvement. And I don't believe that ethanol is the answer. System
80 would have been a good start, but it was killed by the left wing
wacko's in the early 70's.



IMO, a tax break indirectly is no different than a direct break. I
don't argue they should be removed from public policy for the oil
industry, I simply point out the actual cost differentials aren't as
one-side as one might like to imply and there's a lot of infrastructure
and other investment in the current petroleum distribution system that
has a lot of costs that are hidden in maintaining supplies.

I have no idea what you said there.

We're producers, but not of corn. Wheat, milo, cattle, all dryland. So
far this year, no wheat drilled even; last decent rain was July 4th
weekend. There will be no wheat crop on much of the dryland wheat
ground next year because it's now too late even if it rained this
weekend for it to make much of a crop if it were planted now and what
little is in is in such poor condition it is unlikely to make. Last
year was a very good-looking year early but spring storms (hail,
tornados, a late freeze Easter weekend, then excessive rain through
June) destroyed a very significant fraction.

mac davis wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:19:44 -0600, dpb wrote:

Then again, it's essentially impossible to find a native-born
"'Murricun" who'll actually show up to work in many labor-intensive
areas while we pay who knows how many millions to stay on welfare...

The system is terribly broke and seemingly irretrievably so unless and
until there becomes a watershed change in overall opinion at more than
the scattered grassroots level.

It's really interesting how much difference employment is here and in the
States..
In the States, anyone can do any job that they can do and can get..

In Baja, a gringo can't do any thing that would take a job away from a
Mexican national.. no bartending, landscaping, building, etc..


Yep, if the US had the same rules as the Mexican immigration rules, the
government of Mexico would be screaming at how unfair and evil the US rules
were.

From what I've read, you had to provide some fairly substantial
information regarding your ability to support yourself in order to be
allowed to build in Mexico, is that a fair assessment?




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Dave In Houston wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

We're producers, but not of corn. Wheat, milo, cattle, all dryland. So
far this year, no wheat drilled even; last decent rain was July 4th
weekend. There will be no wheat crop on much of the dryland wheat ground
next year because it's now too late even if it rained this weekend for it
to make much of a crop if it were planted now and what little is in is in
such poor condition it is unlikely to make. Last year was a very
good-looking year early but spring storms (hail, tornados, a late freeze
Easter weekend, then excessive rain through June) destroyed a very
significant fraction.

Don't know where you are but are there no varieties that can be planted
on into January? In fact, our rancher was planting varieties as late as
mid-January in recent years primarily to reduce the exposure to wintering
geese (I never thought a gaggle of geese could pack an ag field so hard).

Planted, yes. Have enough warm weather, length of days and most
critically moisture to make a crop? Not likely. This is SW KS where
normal planting time for winter wheat is from September 1 through about
October.

Karnes County, Texas received more than three times it's average annual
rainfall this year, ~65 inches through the end of August. The corn was more
than a month late getting in the ground and about the same late getting
combined. It was iffy if it was even going to make it to combine, it just
did get dry enough to allow the equipment in the field.
But because of all that rain it made 84 bushels/acre vs. an average year
of 40-50 bushels/acre. And, it brought $3.30/bushel, about a dollar more
than previous years.

Most dryland corn here wasn't able to be planted until too late owing to
the early wet field conditions, then after about July 1 the hot, dry
winds pretty much killed the fill. The irrigated guys had some
reasonable yields, but nothing like were hoping for early and ended up
w/ water bills that were higher than average despite the early moisture.

And now wheat is going to be a hot commodity. About six weeks ago the
price of wheat for December delivery was $9.42/bushel and that is about
double a year ago. Our lessee had to go to Comfort, Texas to lock in enough
seed which he intends to drill mid-December. Then he'll have a fight on his
hands to keep the hogs, the sandhill cranes, and the geese from helping
themselves.

Central/SE KS and OK had wet all spring until about end of June. Much
wheat was lost to the Easter weekend freeze, then much of what was left
that looked really, really good up to and into harvest time was either
hailed out, knocked down by all the rain or simply unable to get cut
owing to being too wet to thresh or even get into the field. Some guys
tried bringing in rice machines for the flotation problem but most still
couldn't thresh it or if could it was so wet it was docked heavily.
Much that was cut only tested in the mid-50s for test weights which
makes it essentially useless for anything except animal feed.

Far west had one of better yields in years -- for many in NW it was
first crop in 5-7 years owing to the continuing drought conditions
there. Here in SW, most had gotten enough to cut at least something
through all except 2 or 3 of those, but it's been really lean here as
well. Of course, you only got a good yield on what you actually had to
cut -- there was a lot that didn't make it through the winter or died
the previous fall before the rains started in the spring.

Until this past weekend the rains had just about quit at the end of
August. But 2.5 inches this past Saturday and Sunday came at just the right
time. I'd rather be lucky than good.

We had 1" over the July 4 weekend -- since then, only a few sprinkles
and a couple of very light showers -- 10-15 hundredths kinda' things.
Had a couple inches of dry snow last weekend after three days of 80+F
temperatures w/ dewpoints in the teens and 30 mph winds to makes sure it
took every bit of residual moisture we had first. They're talking this
next front Fri/Sat has reasonable chances but again, it'll have to
saturate the whole atmospheric column to the ground before there's a
chance for anything to actually reach the ground so by the time that
that happens the actual accumulations will again probably be pretty minimal.

As always, there are the occasional showers -- talked to fella' about 15
miles south of us down in OK -- he got one of them in September we got
the sprinkles off of, got his wheat in and up and has cattle running on
it. Said there's an area right around him about 3-5 miles wide and 8-10
long where they got that cell. Of course, they're going to have to get
some more shortly or it won't last.

If we don't get some good general rains or snow and the winds keep
blowing, going to be a dirty winter, enough to remind one of the 50s or
even the 30s if one is that old...

--

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:16:18 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:45:50 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:39 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it
up.

I don't know, that is a number you pulled out of your hat. I can assure
that alcohol does not improve nor maintain gas mileage.

I do know that those lighter weight E85 vehivles that I test drove with
smaller engines had EPA gas mileage estimates that were 10 to 15% less
than the vehivle that I bought with 25-30% more hp.

That sounds reasonable for 20% or so reduction compared to gasoline for
ethanol -- 85% * 0.8 + 15% * 1 == 0.83.

--
Perhaps if the gasohol was 20% cheaper although more often than not it is
more expensive in Houston.

And that's not the real cost. Take away the subsidies (your paying
for them with your taxes) add in the 20% spike in food products that
rely on field corn for food stock (Beef,pork) in the last year, apply
all at a weighted average in your life and you get the real cost of
E85.
Account for the equivalent in subsidies and tax treatment to
petroleum-based production then, too, in order for it to be a more
nearly level playing field.
I'm not aware of directly paid subsidies. I was in that (oil and gas)
industry for twenty years prior to joining the woodworking machinery
company. Maybe I missed them.

There are tax breaks, primarily for the production of marginal wells
and tertiary recovery, but they are not directly paid subsidies,
require profitability to be relevant (not always the case) and some
depletion allowances that, I believe, are only available to small
independent producers. The big incentives ended in 1974.
As noted before, the increase in food costs is made much of and ascribed
in the popular press as owing to ethanol production but it is not so
nearly a direct correlation as that. Much is owing simply to production
costs are higher owing to (gasp, hold on now, revelation coming!) higher
petroleum costs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemical, irrigation costs are all
petroleum based and have skyrocketed if you haven't noticed. As a
simple example, it now takes almost $500 of fuel to fill the tractor
which lasts only one day during planting season.

It also was a lower
yield year owing to weather through much of corn belt
was it?

USDA Forecasts Record-Setting Corn Crop for 2007



WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2007 – U.S. farmers are expected to produce the
largest corn crop in history in 2007, according to the Crop Production
report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Corn production is forecast at
13.1 billion bushels, 10.6 percent above the previous record of 11.8
billion bushels set in 2004.

Based on conditions as of August 1, corn yields are expected to
average 152.8 bushels per acre, up 3.7 bushels from last year. This
would be second highest corn yield on record, behind the 160.4 bushels
per acre produced in 2004. Growers are expected to harvest 85.4
million acres of corn for grain, the most since 1933 and 14.8 million
more acres than last year.


Wonder how it came out? There was plenty of water in the corn belt.
Not as good as those early forecasts -- there was _NOT_ plenty of water
in the corn belt in August thru September despite early wet springs.
The end of July is about when the rains stopped.

I don't believe August is early for field corn. However, USDA
November report is slightly better than the August forecast. Reckon
that corn is in yet?
I would suggest that you graph a few things on top of each other since
the incentive for E85. The price of refined diesel and other refined
petreleoum products.
Diesel is an input, not an output. Correlation does _not_ imply causation.

The price of a bushel of #2 corn. The
production of corn in total bushels/year. The amount of corn used for
feed stock and the amount diverted to the production of biofuel. And
then get a pie chart that shows the impact of energy costs as a
percentage of the total price of a pound of beef. See if you still
hold the same opinion

I've read a number of studies that agree with your point.
"Independent" studies by organizations like the corn growers
association. They're for the subsidies, imagine that. If I was a
corn grower, I would be too.
Check DOE and EIA for latest work on overall energy balance. Not funded
by growers' associations.

If I were a petroleum industry maven, I'd be of your viewpoint as well.

Would you have us simply wait and rely on the oil companies to provide
all without any other efforts? That seems foolish to me (see earlier
note on the local natural gas production company advertising against
coal-fired power plant permitting applications on implication of
minimizing carbon footprint.)

Didn't say that, just pretty much don't believe in government
involvement. And I don't believe that ethanol is the answer. System
80 would have been a good start, but it was killed by the left wing
wacko's in the early 70's.

Well, "believing in" isn't the same thing as being realistic. The
government _is_ involved and they're involved in a big way and will
continue to be. They're just as involved in oil and agriculture as
anywhere else, it's just a little more convoluted as it's been longer in
the making than ethanol itself. Last I checked all the major oil
producers are significant contributors to both the "ins" and the "outs"
in the political process, maintain significant lobbying staffs and run
tremendously expensive ad campaigns to convince the public of the wisdom
of their particular choices for tax and energy policies. Right, wrong,
indifferent, it's simply the way things work.


IMO, a tax break indirectly is no different than a direct break. I
don't argue they should be removed from public policy for the oil
industry, I simply point out the actual cost differentials aren't as
one-side as one might like to imply and there's a lot of infrastructure
and other investment in the current petroleum distribution system that
has a lot of costs that are hidden in maintaining supplies.

I have no idea what you said there.

Didn't figure you would want to. Can you say Middle East oil has many
ancillary costs that aren't on the books of the majors? And that's only
the _most_ obvious.

We're producers, but not of corn. Wheat, milo, cattle, all dryland. So
far this year, no wheat drilled even; last decent rain was July 4th
weekend. There will be no wheat crop on much of the dryland wheat
ground next year because it's now too late even if it rained this
weekend for it to make much of a crop if it were planted now and what
little is in is in such poor condition it is unlikely to make. Last
year was a very good-looking year early but spring storms (hail,
tornados, a late freeze Easter weekend, then excessive rain through
June) destroyed a very significant fraction.

dpb wrote:
Dave In Houston wrote:
....

And now wheat is going to be a hot commodity. About six weeks ago
the price of wheat for December delivery was $9.42/bushel and that is
about double a year ago. Our lessee had to go to Comfort, Texas to
lock in enough seed which he intends to drill mid-December. Then
he'll have a fight on his hands to keep the hogs, the sandhill cranes,
and the geese from helping themselves.
....

As I noted earlier, the wheat pricing is owing to world-wide demand and
low production. You've heard, I'm sure that Australia is in 100-yr
drought. KS/OK/TX panhandle was down significantly this year as well
which is large part of why seed wheat is so tight -- many of the
certified seed producers were also hit hard. Add to that the Russians
were also short as were the South Americans.

Local markets never broke $8.50 on close -- KC was near or maybe even at
the $9 mark, briefly, but we get docked pretty hard by the
transportation costs out here because there's no competition to the
single railroad. It's typically near a 50-cent "tax" for the 200-miles
to Wichita difference, even more to major terminals.

Of course, as they say -- it could be $100/bu but if you don't have any
to sell, it doesn't matter. That's going to be next year for us, it
appears unless miracles happen. We'll probably just keep holding some
reserve from this year and "hide and watch" to see what happens.

--

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:13:14 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


Yep, if the US had the same rules as the Mexican immigration rules, the
government of Mexico would be screaming at how unfair and evil the US rules
were.

As with other things, the US has TONS of rules... they just don't enforce them..

From what I've read, you had to provide some fairly substantial information regarding your ability to support yourself in order to be allowed to build in Mexico, is that a fair assessment?

Hell, it was a bitch just doing the paperwork and stuff just to move here..

Tourist visa, "FM3", (sort of a green card"), bank account with at least $1,500
each in it, passports, itemized list of household and personal possessions being
"imported"... which has to be approved by the Mexican consulate in the States..

Just goes on and on...
Also, they wanted $1,400 import duty just for the tools that were on the moving
van... They (border inspectors) said that I had way too many tools for it to be
a hobby...
The customs broker got them down to $600 and I thought that we did ok.. Beats
buying all new stuff and paying 15% duty on IT..

Oh.. big difference between here and the States: We needed proof of both US and
Mexican insurance on all of our vehicles..

As to income verification, we found out that 55 and older can claim "retired"
and not need verification, so we put my web and turning income (done on
computers and tools made off shore. to be a bit OT) down as my wife's, since she
was really the one retiring, not me..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:08:08 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:19:44 -0600, dpb wrote:

Yeah, the key phrase before was "in Mexico at a good job" -- there are
sadly few of those available given the population and very little
effort, it seems, by the government to resolve the issue except by
dumping their excess on their northern neighbor.

Of course not, the Mexican government is getting rid of their poor and
criminals by giving them maps and instructions how to go north. So
long as the U.S. allows Mexico to pull this crap, we can't solve the
problem. What we really need to do is take a couple million illegals
back to the border and push them all across at once.

As much as the illegal immigration thing bothers me, and don't EVEN start on
that "undocumented citizens" BS, I think that by not enforcing the laws in the
past, we've built a huge part of the economy by using illegal's..
Common quote by farmers when I lived in California was "get rid of 50% of
illegal's and 90% of agriculture goes belly up"



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Leon wrote:


From what I understand, the cars have been on the road for the last 10 years
through out the world with 100,000 units sold.



You need to study the facts behind the hype.

Zap claims "over 100,000 units sold". Guess what, the vast majority of
those were electric scooters and go-kart type vehicles. They have yet
to make a single car if by car one means a vehicle licensed and
registered as a car. Their only "cars" are three wheeled vehicles which
are licensed and registered as motorcycles to avoid safety rules.

Zap regularly announces great plans, but so far has yet to produce an
actual car or truck. Actually they don't MAKE anything as all of their
products to date are labels slapped on Chinese products.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

... And I don't believe that ethanol is the answer.

And, if you'll recall, I've repeatedly agreed I don't think biofuels in
general (and ethanol in particular) are "the" answer, either. I do
think there's a role in a transition that is useful, however.

Given the political realities, doesn't appear as though there's
sufficient political will to yet allow for new exploration in many of
the currently off-limit places and even if that were to change now, it
wouldn't have an effect on production for quite some time. It also
doesn't do anything to improve/increase the refining capacity which,
while it has grown owing to expansion efforts, is still a bottleneck.
Meanwhile, if it can coincidentally pump some life into the farm
economies of the central plains, that can only be, imo, _a_good_thing_ (tm).

System 80 would have been a good start, but it was killed by the left wing
wacko's in the early 70's.

If you're referral is to the CE "standard design" they named that, then
yes, there's (yet another) place we went far wrong way back when, along
with Jimmy pulling the plug on the CRBRP and stopping NRC licensing
review for the proposed GE-built/financed commercial fuel reprocessing
facility at Barnwell.

It _is_, otoh, heartening to note that TVA/NuStart have actually filed a
formal licensing application for a new unit at the Bellefonte site in N
AL (about three weeks ago, now). Of course, it's more than a little
disheartening that the Bellefonte I unit sits there over 90% complete,
abandoned in situ since the late 80s/early 90s along w/ the roughly 850
MWe that Rancho Seco could have been producing in CA if not for the
ill-considered plebiscite orchestrated by the same groups.

Coincidentally to your energy-related background, in a former life I was
NE for B&W NPGD Lynchburg. I came back to farm after 30-something years
mostly generation-related engineering last 10 or so mostly for the
fossil utilities at the EPRI I&C Center located at Kingston Fossil.

--

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:54 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

... And I don't believe that ethanol is the answer.

And, if you'll recall, I've repeatedly agreed I don't think biofuels in
general (and ethanol in particular) are "the" answer, either. I do
think there's a role in a transition that is useful, however.

Given the political realities, doesn't appear as though there's
sufficient political will to yet allow for new exploration in many of
the currently off-limit places and even if that were to change now, it
wouldn't have an effect on production for quite some time. It also
doesn't do anything to improve/increase the refining capacity which,
while it has grown owing to expansion efforts, is still a bottleneck.
Meanwhile, if it can coincidentally pump some life into the farm
economies of the central plains, that can only be, imo, _a_good_thing_ (tm).

System 80 would have been a good start, but it was killed by the left wing
wacko's in the early 70's.

If you're referral is to the CE "standard design" they named that, then
yes, there's (yet another) place we went far wrong way back when, along
with Jimmy pulling the plug on the CRBRP and stopping NRC licensing
review for the proposed GE-built/financed commercial fuel reprocessing
facility at Barnwell.

Yes it is and hey, what do you know, we've reached agreement on
something.




It _is_, otoh, heartening to note that TVA/NuStart have actually filed a
formal licensing application for a new unit at the Bellefonte site in N
AL (about three weeks ago, now). Of course, it's more than a little
disheartening that the Bellefonte I unit sits there over 90% complete,
abandoned in situ since the late 80s/early 90s along w/ the roughly 850
MWe that Rancho Seco could have been producing in CA if not for the
ill-considered plebiscite orchestrated by the same groups.

Coincidentally to your energy-related background, in a former life I was
NE for B&W NPGD Lynchburg. I came back to farm after 30-something years
mostly generation-related engineering last 10 or so mostly for the
fossil utilities at the EPRI I&C Center located at Kingston Fossil.

And I was with CE (Oil and Gas division) 1968-1987

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:47:54 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
....

System 80 would have been a good start, but it was killed by the left wing
wacko's in the early 70's.
If you're referral is to the CE "standard design" they named that, then
yes, there's (yet another) place we went far wrong way back when, ...

Yes it is and hey, what do you know, we've reached agreement on
something.

Oh, you have no problem convincing me of the advantages of nuclear as
the rational long-term choice for baseload electricity generation; it
unfortunately doesn't really directly address the issue of liquid fuels
under discussion here.

While more nuclear generation would, if were to replace current gas and
oil-fired units, alleviate a small portion of current demand and
undoubtedly make a (very short term) dent in the current price pressure
if it could happen in a short time but, of course, it can't so we're
still in the position of "what do we do now that can actually get done?"

....

And I was with CE (Oil and Gas division) 1968-1987

Who we always considered (their nuc generation division, of course) a
quality and fair competitor...

Sadly neither are still in the nuclear island marketplace leaving the
field in the US to GE and circle-W.

--

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:30:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:47:43 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The question you should be asking is why the U.S. completely
wasted their superiority.
Obvious answer, they were reaping in the profits, instead of
spending
some of that money to improve quality and R&D in new
technologies.

The big problem was that they were heavily invested in tube
technology and didn't really understand the potential of solid
state.

That is total BS. Transistors and integrated circuits were
invented
in the US are continue to be manufactured by US companies in
volume.
Motorola was a leader in televisions with it's Quasar brand and
also
was a big leader in semiconductors.

Ditto RCA in it's heyday.

There was no lack of US involvement in solid state technology or
manufacturing. In fact to this day it is one area where the US
still
has a major industrial base.

John

It's a fact that HDTV was pushed by the govt

When was it "pushed by the govt"? There wasn't even a standard for
it until 1996, at which time there were no US television
manufacturers.

as a jump start to Zenith

You mean the Zenith division of my favorite Korean electronics
manufacturer, Lucky-Goldstar?

and Quasar

You mean Quasar division of Matsu****a Electronics (aka "Panasonic")?

and Curtis Mathis.

You mean the K-Mart house brand?

The idea was that the consumers would
have to upgrade to a new TV set that would HAVE to be made in the
USA,
since the Japanese wouldn't have the capability of making them. It
was a given that it would be an incredible boost to the USA TV
manufacturers. And so HDTV was invented.

This was in 1976. (It's a fact.)

If in 1976 anybody in the electronics industry thought that the
Japanese couldn't make HDTV they were damned fools. France
demonstrated their first HDTV in 1949, the Soviet Union in 1958, and
Panasonic in 1974. And it's difficult to see how something that had
been running commercially since the early '50s could have been
"invented" in 1976.

Of course, no TV sets have been manufactured in the USA for over 5
years. Zenith is now LG, and overseas, BTW.

And Quasar was Panasonic, and overseas, in 1976. By the way, Zenith
was bought by LG in 1995, a year before there was an HDTV standard.

--

HDTV was invented in the halls of Congress, not the FCC. Congress
said, 'do this...' and the FCC followed suit.

Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:30:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:47:43 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The question you should be asking is why the U.S. completely
wasted their superiority.
Obvious answer, they were reaping in the profits, instead of
spending
some of that money to improve quality and R&D in new
technologies.

The big problem was that they were heavily invested in tube
technology and didn't really understand the potential of solid
state.

That is total BS. Transistors and integrated circuits were
invented
in the US are continue to be manufactured by US companies in
volume.
Motorola was a leader in televisions with it's Quasar brand and
also
was a big leader in semiconductors.

Ditto RCA in it's heyday.

There was no lack of US involvement in solid state technology or
manufacturing. In fact to this day it is one area where the US
still
has a major industrial base.

John

It's a fact that HDTV was pushed by the govt

When was it "pushed by the govt"? There wasn't even a standard
for
it until 1996, at which time there were no US television
manufacturers.

as a jump start to Zenith

You mean the Zenith division of my favorite Korean electronics
manufacturer, Lucky-Goldstar?

and Quasar

You mean Quasar division of Matsu****a Electronics (aka
"Panasonic")?

and Curtis Mathis.

You mean the K-Mart house brand?

The idea was that the consumers would
have to upgrade to a new TV set that would HAVE to be made in the
USA,
since the Japanese wouldn't have the capability of making them.
It
was a given that it would be an incredible boost to the USA TV
manufacturers. And so HDTV was invented.

This was in 1976. (It's a fact.)

If in 1976 anybody in the electronics industry thought that the
Japanese couldn't make HDTV they were damned fools. France
demonstrated their first HDTV in 1949, the Soviet Union in 1958,
and
Panasonic in 1974. And it's difficult to see how something that
had
been running commercially since the early '50s could have been
"invented" in 1976.

Of course, no TV sets have been manufactured in the USA for over 5
years. Zenith is now LG, and overseas, BTW.

And Quasar was Panasonic, and overseas, in 1976. By the way,
Zenith
was bought by LG in 1995, a year before there was an HDTV standard.

--

HDTV was invented in the halls of Congress, not the FCC. Congress
said, 'do this...' and the FCC followed suit.

So you're saying that the French invented HDTV because the US Congress
ordered the FCC to do it? I guess the Soviet Union did the same (are
you old enough to remember the Soviet Union?). And the Japanese of
course always slavishly obey the FCC.

Oh, you were talking about the US? Then how is it that the FCC rules
implementing HDTV predate the first legislation concerning it by a
year? And what exactly did legislation extending the deadline for its
implementation have to do with "inventing" it?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:30:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


(snippity snip)


HDTV was invented in the halls of Congress, not the FCC. Congress
said, 'do this...' and the FCC followed suit.

So you're saying that the French invented HDTV because the US Congress
ordered the FCC to do it? I guess the Soviet Union did the same (are
you old enough to remember the Soviet Union?). And the Japanese of
course always slavishly obey the FCC.

Oh, you were talking about the US? Then how is it that the FCC rules
implementing HDTV predate the first legislation concerning it by a
year? And what exactly did legislation extending the deadline for its
implementation have to do with "inventing" it?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


Noob here....

OMG, talk about running astray from the OP -

Anyway, just an observation that there is a big difference between
proof of concept, invention, and product distribution.
Historically there was a LOT of study world wide on the idea of
improving definition of transmitted images, But the studies did not
result in much invention - inventions came along as a means to try
and get the concepts packaged into a form that could (and would)
be distributed to a wide populace for commercial purposes. In that
vein, Zenith, RCA, MIT, & a host of other companies did a lot of
inventing - but there was a problem too large to allow the market
forces to resolve - one of "standardization". THAT's where the
FCC, and ultimately congress, got involved to "make it happen".

Now, is anyone still interested in where their tools are made?????

(smirk)
NGA

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Common quote by farmers when I lived in California was "get rid of 50% of
illegal's and 90% of agriculture goes belly up"

That's complete crap though. You don't allow people to break the law
just to stay in business, if you cannot compete within the bounds of
the law that everyone has to follow, you shouldn't be in business to
begin with.

The simple fact is, get rid of the illegals, require all employers to
follow the same labor laws and if the prices go up, they go up.
That's life. Then maybe they can actually COMPETE in a free market.

Not Gimpy Anymore wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:30:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


(snippity snip)


HDTV was invented in the halls of Congress, not the FCC. Congress
said, 'do this...' and the FCC followed suit.

So you're saying that the French invented HDTV because the US
Congress ordered the FCC to do it? I guess the Soviet Union did
the
same (are you old enough to remember the Soviet Union?). And the
Japanese of course always slavishly obey the FCC.

Oh, you were talking about the US? Then how is it that the FCC
rules
implementing HDTV predate the first legislation concerning it by a
year? And what exactly did legislation extending the deadline for
its implementation have to do with "inventing" it?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


Noob here....

OMG, talk about running astray from the OP -

Anyway, just an observation that there is a big difference between
proof of concept, invention, and product distribution.
Historically there was a LOT of study world wide on the idea of
improving definition of transmitted images, But the studies did not
result in much invention - inventions came along as a means to try
and get the concepts packaged into a form that could (and would)
be distributed to a wide populace for commercial purposes. In that
vein, Zenith, RCA, MIT, & a host of other companies did a lot of
inventing - but there was a problem too large to allow the market
forces to resolve - one of "standardization". THAT's where the
FCC, and ultimately congress, got involved to "make it happen".

Let's try this again. An 800 line system was distributed to the
French populace (I don't know how wide but anybody with the Francs
could buy one) in the 1950s. The Soviet Union had an 1100 line system
in use by their military in the 1960s. In August 1990 the Japanese
had their first HD broadcast and were broadcasting 8 hours a day of HD
content in 1991,with sets available to anyone who had the Yen. Seems
to me that there was a lot more going on than "studies".

FCC basically brought to the US public what was already available to
the French and Japanese publics. Of course it ended up different in
detail from either system.

Now, is anyone still interested in where their tools are made?????

Not me, all I care about is whether they work.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:34:34 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Common quote by farmers when I lived in California was "get rid of 50% of
illegal's and 90% of agriculture goes belly up"

That's complete crap though. You don't allow people to break the law
just to stay in business, if you cannot compete within the bounds of
the law that everyone has to follow, you shouldn't be in business to
begin with.

The simple fact is, get rid of the illegals, require all employers to
follow the same labor laws and if the prices go up, they go up.
That's life. Then maybe they can actually COMPETE in a free market.

No disagreement here.. I was stating what has been allowed to happen, not that I
thought it was right..
My point is that you don't need new laws, you need to enforce the ones on the
books.. tons of immigration laws, just enforce them..

Like all the new laws about using cell phones in the car... We already have laws
to cover drivers that aren't paying attention, reckless, etc... just enforce
'em..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

I started my search for a retirement cabinet saw about seven years ago.
Initially I was pretty much predisposed to the Delta Unisaw. I had used one
in a college cabinet class during the 70's and a cousing had one that was of
similar vintage. I was impressed with both.

When I started looking at new unisaws (2001 time frame) I was disappointed.
The machining on the top was not as smooth as remembered. Several hardware
items (handwheels and nuts for example) were cheapened. We took a trip to
the Springfield Griz store. Then I took advantage of their customer
referral in our home town and that sold me. I have owned my 1023s for about
six years and would put it up against the new Unisaw any day - about $550
less at the time.

I buy based on individual quality and value. If it Griz - Good. If its
Powermatic - just as good if the value is right. BTW, a good part of my 2
year old Powermatic jointer was made in China.

RonB

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:46:41 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

My point is that you don't need new laws, you need to enforce the ones on the
books.. tons of immigration laws, just enforce them..

That's true, I'm just sick of all the politicians who refuse to
actually do their jobs because they don't like costing themselves
votes. As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose job it is to enforce the
law and refuses to should be removed from office immediately and
replaced with someone who will.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 08:21:43 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:46:41 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

My point is that you don't need new laws, you need to enforce the ones on the
books.. tons of immigration laws, just enforce them..

That's true, I'm just sick of all the politicians who refuse to
actually do their jobs because they don't like costing themselves
votes. As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose job it is to enforce the
law and refuses to should be removed from office immediately and
replaced with someone who will.

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented a
career called "politician"..
Used to be you got talked into running for office and if you won, you did your
term and then went back to whatever it was you did for a living..
Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office.. YMWV


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:05:43 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented a
career called "politician"..

Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office..

The poster child for that is now a "temporary resident of Iowa".

WWE announcer voice
CT's own, Chrissssss Dooooodd!.
/WWE announcer voice.

Daddy was a Senator, Chris has never had a real job, and now he hasn't
even been bothering to vote in the Senate, as he pursues a
Presidential campaign that doesn't even register in the primary polls.
He can't register in the primary polls, because he has nothing to show
for 30 something years in Washington, and no real platform. I'm
quite sure he feels he should run for Prez. based simply on seniority,
he's due the job!

Dodd is such a pompous ass that he told the Hartford Courant, "Though
I haven't done well in the polls, at least I'm enjoying myself." All
CT voters should be glad for that! G

The idiot has actually rented a home and enrolled his children in
school in Iowa, so he can "be close to the people", while ignoring the
job we pay him to do.

We deserve what we get, as we continue to elect on name recognition
and govern without the benefit term limits.

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour. Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going. This is from first hand experience,
I live in apple country and used to work in the industry. I could talk to my
wife (BTW, it's our 26 wedding anniversary today) about other facets of the
farm industry that are just as dependent on Mexican labor (she is an ex
migrant farm worker).

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:12:40 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

The simple fact is, get rid of the illegals, require all employers to
follow the same labor laws and if the prices go up, they go up.
That's life. Then maybe they can actually COMPETE in a free market.

"CW" wrote in message
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention.

A well administered "guest worker" program, retroactive to include those
already here without granting citizenship and rewarding illegality, would be
a most sensible solution ... along with elected officials with less
self-interest and enough sense to implement one. Countries in Europe have
been doing it for years, with less risk to sovereignty and greater benefit
to economy.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:05:43 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented a
career called "politician"..
Used to be you got talked into running for office and if you won, you did your
term and then went back to whatever it was you did for a living..
Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office.. YMWV

Exactly. I think we not only need term limits, we need political
office limits. You can work in politics... ANYWHERE in politics, for
a maximum of 10 years, then you need to work for at least 10 years in
the private sector, completely outside of the political realm.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:40:35 -0800, "CW" wrote:

Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have. You won't find enough Americans to get the crops in.
You couldn't pay most people enough to do the work. It is not because of low
pay. A (Mexican) apple picker can easily make $20.00 an hour. Mexican labor
is what keeps the fruit producers going. This is from first hand experience,
I live in apple country and used to work in the industry. I could talk to my
wife (BTW, it's our 26 wedding anniversary today) about other facets of the
farm industry that are just as dependent on Mexican labor (she is an ex
migrant farm worker).

If that's what it took, absolutely, but that's not even remotely close
to reality. Prices on produce would go up a few cents at best. What
you're presenting above is a complete and total lie and hopefully, you
just swallowed someone else's load of crap and are not purposely
spreading it yourself.

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:40:35 -0800, "CW" wrote:

(BTW, it's our 26 wedding anniversary today)

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!


#18 was last week for me.

Bonehenge (B A R R Y) wrote:

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:05:43 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

Totally off topic, but I think government went to hell when they invented
a career called "politician"..

Now, kids are groomed almost from birth to run for and hold office..

The poster child for that is now a "temporary resident of Iowa".

WWE announcer voice
CT's own, Chrissssss Dooooodd!.
/WWE announcer voice.

.... snip
We deserve what we get, as we continue to elect on name recognition
and govern without the benefit term limits.

Another poster child: Hillary Clinton. She moved to New York solely to
run for office and now claims that her qualification for office is that she
was married to the president and has been in the white house before
(paraphrasing). That, and it's "her turn".



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:

"CW" wrote in message
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention.

A well administered "guest worker" program, retroactive to include those
already here without granting citizenship and rewarding illegality, would
be a most sensible solution ... along with elected officials with less
self-interest and enough sense to implement one. Countries in Europe have
been doing it for years, with less risk to sovereignty and greater benefit
to economy.


That hasn't exactly been working out too well for the Europeans either.
Suburbs around Paris have been in flames the past couple of weeks because
of some of those "guest workers". Britain is having similar problems.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Another poster child: Hillary Clinton. She moved to New York solely to
run for office and now claims that her qualification for office is that she
was married to the president and has been in the white house before
(paraphrasing). That, and it's "her turn".

I hear ya'!

In article , "CW" wrote:
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have.

Yep. I've picked apples, too. Enough to know that the idea that using American
labor to pick them would cause apples to cost fifteen bucks apiece is sheer
lunacy, a fictional number with no factual basis whatsoever, invented for no
purpose other than scaring people into believing the lie that our economy
would collapse without the cheap labor provided by illegal aliens.

Do the math. You claim an apple picker can easily make $20 an hour. Now let's
suppose that the picker's wage is only one-fifth of the retail price of an
apple. That means $100 retail worth of apples picked in an hour, or (at $15
per apple) one apple every nine minutes.

That's one damned lazy apple picker.

And one damned stupid grower, who's paying that lazy-ass picker three dollars
_per_apple_.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Dec. 19 will be twenty, and I'm more in love than the day I married her.

Glen

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:40:35 -0800, "CW" wrote:

(BTW, it's our 26 wedding anniversary today)

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!


#18 was last week for me.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "CW" wrote:
Would you be willing to pay $15.00 for an apple? How about $18.00 for a
pear? Those who claim that the problem is as simple as throwing out the
illegal either don't live in farm country or are not paying attention. Ever
picked apples? I have.

Yep. I've picked apples, too. Enough to know that the idea that using American
labor to pick them would cause apples to cost fifteen bucks apiece is sheer
lunacy, a fictional number with no factual basis whatsoever, invented for no
purpose other than scaring people into believing the lie that our economy
would collapse without the cheap labor provided by illegal aliens.

Do the math. You claim an apple picker can easily make $20 an hour. Now let's
suppose that the picker's wage is only one-fifth of the retail price of an
apple. That means $100 retail worth of apples picked in an hour, or (at $15
per apple) one apple every nine minutes.

That's one damned lazy apple picker.

And one damned stupid grower, who's paying that lazy-ass picker three dollars
_per_apple_.

Problem is, you can't get "'Murricuns" to do the work at any price...the
unemployed are mostly in the urban centers and on welfare. Unemployment
here in rural, ag area is under 3%. Since typically 1% or so is
considered "unemployable", it's already scraping the barrel for bodies.

--