Comments on: The USDA is probably going to “intervene” in the sugar market, for only the zillionth time

By: Desperate to Foment New Regulations & Lawsuits, Activists Ratchet Up “Food Addiction” Campaign | The Legal Pulse

Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:31:51 +0000

[...] crackers and frozen waffles would taste without the additions of “toxic” salt and (heavily government-subsidized) [...]

By: flstc

flstc — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:51:30 +0000

This sugar subsidy also leads to lost jobs. A lot of candy is now produced in Mexico since the sugar is much cheaper down there. An example how the current administration is continuing the practice of shipping jobs out of the country. Something they always accuse the other side of doing.

By: cptacek

cptacek — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:23:07 +0000

Sugar is more energy dense than corn for ethanol and using it won’t limit the supply of livestock feed driving up the price of just about everything from beef to cereal. So why exactly has corn been used instead of sugar?

John Deaux on March 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Cattlemen use what is left over after they make ethanol to feed their cattle. We mix it with ground hay (even wheat straw) to up the starch component to make up for what is taken out of the corn/milo to make the ethanol. The protein and fat content is still there, and cows eat the WDG and hay/straw combination like candy.

By: SphericMojo

SphericMojo — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:38:12 +0000

Okay. So the Government has proven that it purchases product on the open market to impact prices. Now follow this line of reasoning to the massive billion-round purchased of ammunition by the DHS. The goal being to soak up supply and tie up producers, preventing the general public from stocking-up until the laws limiting purchasing ammo can be passed. Viola! Market forces at work. Drive up the price, buy material that it doesn’t really need (hopefully), and implement your goal of maintaining higher than normal market pricing to achieve a political goal.
Dear Comrade: Keep you hands out of our (sugar, ammo, rifles, corn, etc.), thank you.

By: GWB

GWB — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:50 +0000

Sugar tastes better and is better for you than corn syrup. hawkdriver on March 13, 2013 at 4:22 AM

Amen. I love Pepsi Throwback! And, yes, we need to get the government out of ALL subsidies in the marketplace!

By: arand

arand — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:19:28 +0000

“drive prices up to prevent losses to sugar producers”?? And why are they suffering losses in a controlled, subsidized market? Somebody doing a little skimming here? And maybe some money floating around under tables, government money some of whch is kicked back to USDA employees? Government at work, It’s a beautiful thing.

By: tdarrington

tdarrington — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:55:32 +0000

Wait……what?

By: EricW

EricW — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:12:59 +0000

Why don’t we just make more rum?

By: Monkeytoe

Monkeytoe — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:11:18 +0000

I agree with everything the writer says. But I have a question – how much lower would sugar prices be without the fed interference?

A pound of sugar is only about $1 or $2 where I live.

I have to guess that this is one of those issues that would not effect the individual consumer so much as processed food manufacturers and candy manufacturers that use tons (literally) of sugar.

I doubt the individual household buys more than 1 pound of sugar every month, if that.

By: ExpressoBold

ExpressoBold — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:51:38 +0000

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is likely to buy sugar in the domestic market this year in order to drive prices up and prevent defaults on loans made to sugar processors, according to a USDA economist.

. WAIT! How big are the loans outstanding? Are they more than $80 million, the amount planned to lose in this price-support scheme?

By: LoganSix

LoganSix — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:47:41 +0000

If we stop the subsidies, do we have to give back Hawaii?

By: ajacksonian

ajacksonian — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:17:20 +0000

Just stop subsidizing it.

And, yeah, take of the taxes on foreign suppliers while you’re at it.

Set the American people free to compete with the world on prices, you Nannystate government. You are a damned incompetent Nanny.

By: From The Edge of Sequestration – About Those Job Cuts… — GraniteGrok

From The Edge of Sequestration – About Those Job Cuts… — GraniteGrok — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:19:39 +0000

[...] speaking of the USDA and Federal spending, did you know that the USDA is planning to buy 400,000 tons of sugar this year to drive the price (and the price of everything we buy that has sugar in it), so that [...]

By: hawkdriver

hawkdriver — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:22:57 +0000

Sugar tastes better and is better for you than corn syrup.

By: Shy Guy

Shy Guy — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:12:40 +0000

This is all about white sugar.

RACISTS!

By: The USDA and Sugar

The USDA and Sugar — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:40:01 +0000

[...] The US government has been playing with the prices of corn, sugar, and other agricultural products for decades. This year, the USDA is considering boosting the price of sugar by buying 400,000 tons, and then burn…. [...]

By: TexasDan

TexasDan — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:15:52 +0000

Can I safely assume we’re still feeding corn syrup to our cows as well, due to Federal fiddling in the corn market via ethanol, plus drought?

By: John Deaux

John Deaux — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:42:29 +0000

Sugar is more energy dense than corn for ethanol and using it won’t limit the supply of livestock feed driving up the price of just about everything from beef to cereal. So why exactly has corn been used instead of sugar?

By: STL_Vet

STL_Vet — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:15:13 +0000

Only is it feasible in liberal minds for the government to at the same time purchase sugar to keep the price high, but ban the purchase of soft drinks in large sizes?

By: thuja

thuja — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:08:21 +0000

Gee, thanks. It’s really too magnanimous of you to determine exactly what an “acceptable level” of sugar prices looks like on our behalf, the economic ripple effects be damned.

You are right, Erika. And I love you Erika. But someone we have to figure out how to get this point without sounding negative. You do sound negative. We need to make economic freedom romantic. My belief is that Ayn Rand failed miserably at this, but I do think it can be done.

By: viking01

viking01 — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:07:19 +0000

If the price of sugar drops then beverage and food manufacturers might go back to using it to flavor drinks and sweets instead of high fructose corn syrup (much to Archer Daniels Midland’s and the corn lobby’s disdain). That could reduce the growing incidence of Type II diabetes in our children.

That would then interfere with Barky and Moochelle and Nanny Blooberg’s ability to rule what the peons and the skoolchildren must and must not eat. Big Brother must not be interfered with……

By: Steve Eggleston

Steve Eggleston — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:59:00 +0000

Of course, that’s the world (ICE Contract 11) price with sugar coming from any number of countries with no duties imposed. The effective domestic (ICE Contract 16) price is a bit higher ($0.2103/lb) because it imposes duties on foreign-sourced sugar.

Don’t even get me started on the wholesale/retail price of refined sugar.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:53:09 +0000

The real point of all this is to make sure that sugar costs more per serving than HFCS, so that all the soft drink and prepared food companies will continue to buy corn sweetener.

If the price of sugar drops too low, Archer Daniels Midland takes a bath, and all the senators they own will shriek.

By: theperfecteconomist

theperfecteconomist — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:44:26 +0000

Federal loan guarantees, which are just preemptive bailouts, need to be axed yesterday. That they are a major underlying force in contorting our domestic policy is just sickening.

By: Steve Eggleston

Steve Eggleston — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:38:43 +0000

To entice ethanol producers to buy the sugar, the USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation is expected to sell it at a loss of about 10 cents a pound, or $80 million total, Ms. Fecso said.

Let’s see; 800,000,000 pounds of sugar at the current contract price of $0.1882/pound is $150,560,000, with no guarantee that the corn-a-hole crowd will buy the sugar.

And yet the ObamiNation can’t figure out either why government is too big or where to cut expenditures.

As Wile E. Coyote once said, “Brilliance, that’s what it is. Sheer, unadulterated BRILLIANCE!”