Cramer: "Ethanol is a fuel that doesn't work"
Cramer -- who spews out on so many things he can't help but be wrong on many of them -- al least gets the problems with Ethanol right:
"The bemused best-selling author noted the "utter inconsistency" of laissez faire.
"We want laissez faire when it comes to business -- except when it comes to the insistence of a politically popular but economically and environmentally hazardous renewable fuel, ethanol," he said.As a result, he said we have unequivocal government support for a fuel that doesn't work and that raises the price of food for everyone including those who can least afford it, which, in turn, forces the Federal Reserve to keep the money supply tight to rein in resulting inflation.
"So we are laissez faire when it suits us … and we are anti-laissez faire when we can help farm states crucify us on a cross of ethanol," he said.
He railed against a tax structure that supports "tax rates for billionaires at a lower percentage level than those who make $30,000 a year. This is utterly shameless."
Populism lives . . .
>
Source:
Jim Cramer challenges 'laissez faire' government
Jan. 30, 2008
http://www.bucknell.edu/x40027.xml
>
~~~
ADS BY GOOGLE
Saturday, February 02, 2008 | 04:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (36)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e54ffea8e08833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cramer: "Ethanol is a fuel that doesn't work":
Comments
Okay, I'm still waiting for the first person to point out how funny this is coming from Cramer, a guy who says he promotes free market capitalism and then turns around and cries out on national TV for the Fed to bail out Wall St. with "liquidity", aka money drops.
Posted by: David | Feb 2, 2008 4:48:26 PM
Oh wait. In reading this article, I now see that the Cramer on CNBC is admittedly a "Mad Money" persona, and not the real Jim Cramer.
He also feels talks about the government's true role in promoting the general welfare, and that we need government regulation to protect us from "predator capitalists".
It's funny, because I thought government regulations and subsidies helped cement advantages for entrentched businesses and "predator capitalists" like the large Agribusiness companies who profit from the ethanol regs he specifically cited as damaging to our nation.
Posted by: David | Feb 2, 2008 4:58:11 PM
Nothing can force the current Fed to tighten the money supply.
They will institute a negative interest rate to prop up the neo-cons.
Posted by: Paul Jones | Feb 2, 2008 5:09:44 PM
If Cramer get it, it MUST be obvious!
Unless there are weather problems, we should have a good grain crop. Around here, land that was pasture or hay meadow was disced last fall and purdy green winter wheat is a growin. Beans is the crop for 08.
Ethanol economics work best with sugar. Best being a relative term.
Posted by: Ross | Feb 2, 2008 5:41:32 PM
Since Barry had a Ludwig von Mises quote up earlier in the week, another quote might be in order. From the back cover of December's issue of the Freeman, originally from "Some Observations on Current Economic Methods and Policies"
"A governmental system that spends every year billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to make essential foodstuffs, cotton and many other articles more expensive should certainly have the decency not to boast of an alleged war against poverty."--Ludwig von Mises
Posted by: Joe | Feb 2, 2008 5:42:58 PM
Isn't it funny how consistently the political initiatives designed to make things better for us all end up backfiring in the end, Social security being the most obvious example.
Ethanol is such a small percentage of our fuel supply and requires such a huge part of our agricultural product to produce current quantities. I would like to see some sore of data about the cost reduction for petroleum products as a result of ethanol in relation to the cost increases of other products as a result of the increased ethanol production.
Sure, ethanol may be renewable but is it really worth sacrificing an affordable food supply to marginally reduce the cost of gas?
As a college kid the most concerning product that will see a price increase to me: Beer, hops have become a less preferable crop to plant for farmers than soybeans for ethanol production.
I like what Cramer has to say on this topic, although I think this is more genuine a perspective than we tend to see on Mad Money.
Posted by: college kid Ted | Feb 2, 2008 8:05:59 PM
Mr. Diarhea of the mouth 24/7... Your life will better if you just filter him out completely and forever.
Posted by: Bob A | Feb 2, 2008 8:52:19 PM
"Ethanol is a fuel that doesn't work."
The same can be said for the administration backing its production.
Posted by: Winston Munn | Feb 2, 2008 9:28:34 PM
Cramer sometimes makes sense with his calls.
Where as Kudlow makes no sense at all times.
Those of you bashing Cramer, and keeping quiet about Kudlow should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: rickrude | Feb 2, 2008 10:02:58 PM
Ethanol reminds me of the University of Maine getting endless guvmint millions of $$$ to try and grow Atlantic cod and halibut in a hatchery and aquaculture operation (and failing miserably) instead of addressing the well known and specific issues that have debilitated the most perfect Atlantic cod and halibut hatchery in the world: the Gulf of Maine.
Ethanol is the same dynamic. You have a problem. Then you have a whole host of people who get to look good (Congress, state legislators, University administrators etc. ) even though it is obvious from the outset that the solution will not solve the problem. And in both cases, the only way to solve the problem (energy, overfishing) requires political leadership and tough decisions, not a ribbon cutting ceremony and a host of negative, unintended consequences.
Posted by: Doug Watts | Feb 2, 2008 10:25:26 PM
>> end up backfiring in the end, Social security being the most obvious example.
That's not an obvious example. I'm glad society decided to help the old and the disabled eat and possibly afford shelter. That's a success.
Are you worried about the national debt? First, future "projected" Medicare expenses dwarf social security. That's the big kahuna. Second, fixing the social security shortfall is easy. (But, there's no consensus on how. So, it doesn't get done.) Either raise the retirement age and/or eliminate the cap on collecting soc sec taxes. (Equivalent to increasing tax on the top decile earners by 15%.)
I'm not an expert in this area. But, long-time poster VJ knows something or two about this subject.
Posted by: wunsacon | Feb 2, 2008 10:35:43 PM
One analysis of the cost of corn ethanol is here: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/cooke/2007/0202.html
Posted by: The Dirty Mac | Feb 2, 2008 10:46:44 PM
With such obvious wrong doing, manipulation, and bullshit being conducted by these people in power....
It angers me by the day...
It has made me question what I am really doing w/ my life...
Should I continue to make a good six-figure income from my Masters in ECE... Should I wake up every morning @ 5 a.m PST to try to trade my income out of the pits of inflation and bullshit taxes?
Or
Should I just say fuck it and take a stand...
Risk my financial future and my well being to pursue a purpose greater than myself...
To end the bullshit... To try to make a dent in the this system which is seemingly just out to royally fuck everyone over who wants to do something of substance with their life and and reward those who aren't... Like honestly, who the ____ are these people who are running are state, local, and federal governments? Are they those kids who slept, goof'd off and created havoc in the classrooms while everyone was trying to learn life skills? But they 'speak' so well.. And o' they are soo confident... And o' dont they seem like visionaries? Really ? I mean, wtf is going on?
No one would stand for me coming into work everyday not earning my pay and further fucking things up.... So, why is the system (Governance) such that these assholes can do this?
This has been the 30th headline I have read since maybe OCtober 07' that has made me absolutely want to throw up after investigating it further...
Just what the hell is going on?
Posted by: jaden | Feb 2, 2008 11:21:10 PM
Sounds like class warfare too me. How shrill! Somebody think of ADM's shareholders!
Posted by: ThatGuy | Feb 3, 2008 12:01:47 AM
The Bush Administration is not constrained by reason, logic, science, mathematics, morals, ethics, precedent, history, law, public sentiment, national interest, duty, humility, guilt, or shame. It is from this blissful ignorance that ethanol is distilled.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius | Feb 3, 2008 12:42:40 AM
I forget, are the Dems against ethanol subsidies or did they vote for them?
Posted by: Dave | Feb 3, 2008 12:51:36 AM
10/19/07
WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) yesterday introduced a bill to immediately update the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to require the production of 18 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2016 including 3 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol. The legislation will implement the RFS requirements that were included in the energy bill passed by the Senate in June. However, negotiations between Senate and House on competing energy bills have stalled, and the new RFS has yet to take effect. Obama and Harkin's bill recognizes the need for prompt action to update these renewable fuel requirements to provide market certainty to small, local, and farmer-owned ethanol producers.
Posted by: kk | Feb 3, 2008 1:04:43 AM
On the other hand, the cost of ethanol needs to compared with the question of whether the U.S. would have ever spent $500 Billion occupying Iraq if it was called Chad or Tierra del Fuego instead of Iraq ... At least under the present administration, the externalities of not having an alternative fuels program and supply have become expensive ...
Posted by: Doug Watts | Feb 3, 2008 1:22:26 AM
Wow, Cramer is so right on this one I'll have to stop thinking ill of him for a bit... and I'm done, but I hope he keeps pointing out how stupid the ethanol subsidy is.
Posted by: F. Frederson | Feb 3, 2008 1:44:38 AM
"Social security being the most obvious example"
Social security is not bankrupt nor in any kind of solvency trouble.
The whole country is the issue.
SS has been pillaged to keep the cash deficit artificially low.
Posted by: ilsm | Feb 3, 2008 7:33:55 AM
I am not aware of why ethanol does not work as a source of energy.
I am fsmiliar with technical advances in using cellulose to make bio fuels which will relieve the need to use plant sugar bases for ethanol production.
Does anyone think farmers will grow saw grass instead of wheat?
Posted by: ilsm | Feb 3, 2008 7:37:29 AM
since I'm in the middle of corn country - I'm content we have a viable alternate fuel for the combustion engine
I hope world politics doesn't interupt the oil supply - I can think of a half dozen scenarios (I won't mention)
I ask:
does this concept make sense in an
un-cash base society?
I know ya are, but what am I ... eee
Posted by: Greg0658 | Feb 3, 2008 8:13:29 AM
The Republican continue to preach free markets as long as the "market" is working for them. They also continue to say that Keynesian economic policies, when applied to social programs are bad, but have no trouble applying the Keynesian methods for the military (did anyone notice their new budget is $750b?) and Wall Street (rate cuts galore).
As for Cramer, a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: Damian | Feb 3, 2008 10:16:34 AM
Ethanol is a joke. Not to mention it takes away valuable land for our food. There are plenty of studies that show population growth exceeding the amount of land to plant crops.
The funniest thing to me is we have one station here that carries E85 and it sells at about 15 to 20 cents less than gas. Ethanol is 20-25% less efficient than gas folks which means it gets less MPG. It eats your car up too. Total joke, like Gore's carbon credits (hook in mouth). Ethanol ends up burning more gas. Plus, it takes fossil fuel to create ethanol.
You want to make a difference? Walk more, take local vacations, carpool, ride a bike. Live in a smaller house, etc, etc, etc. we are so wasteful in this country.
Just use less gas.
Enron like tactics work in the short run but America will find another way like they always do. So as profits rise from overly priced energy with ridiculous reasons such as Cows farting on a pipe line, people decrease consumption an find another way. Ethanol ain't cheaper and it's not even close to being viable for our country.
Oil will come down as profits wane and people find another way. Energy cartels may find that Americans enjoy saving energy and that it isn't that hard. Uh Oh, better try to massage that sweet spot better.
It's never enough, they had America driving SUV's and living hours from work in McMansion that they had to heat and cool. Not enough, Greed, Greed, Greed.
Posted by: ken h | Feb 3, 2008 10:41:01 AM
Cramerica is wrong.
First, the claim that ethanol caused price inflation in food was debunked. It's a Big Oil propaganda talking point. Second, he ignores the fact that American farmers currently utilize 80 million acres of farmland to export large amounts of corn and soybeans, which could be used to make ethanol. Third, he ignores the fact that we currently pay a lot of money to farmers to NOT grow crops on 40 million acres of farmland, which could be used to grow corn and soybeans. We could make 180 billion gallons of ethanol from that 120 million acres of farmland.
However, corn and soybeans are merely transitional feedstocks anyway, as Khosla is building a cellulosic ethanol pilot plant next year which can convert agricultural waste and landfill trash into ethanol.
.
Posted by: VJ | Feb 3, 2008 11:33:22 AM
