6 ms·

The Great Sugar Shaft

50 points by alecst 17y ago

JacobAldridge 17y ago
From this 1998 OP - "The only thing that could make American sugar cane farmers world-class competitive would be massive global warming." Gee whiz - sugar was also the reason why the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol!
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  The US signed it but the Senate didn't ratify it (they voted 95-0 against it). Which is for the best really because it was a poorly conceived idea even, perhaps especially, if you think man-made CO2 emissions would lead to a world catastrophe in the near future. Note that most of the signatories to the Kyoto protocols have not lived up to them.
  - JacobAldridge 17y ago
    I guess my point - poorly made - was elaborating on the article's observation that Congress and the White House have spent the better part of two centuries doing everything they can to prop up the US sugar industry, and then connecting the observation about global warming to the timing (about 12 months after Kyoto). As a general rule, when a comment or joke takes more words to explain than it did to make originally, that's a darn good sign you missed the mark!
    - ytinas 17y ago
      I disagree. A joke will always be more concise than the explanation of what (possibly) makes it funny.
philk 17y ago
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -- Margaret Thatcher
- tentonova2 17y ago
  From Wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Of course Wikipedia might be wrong here, but even my rudimentary understanding of "socialism" is aligned with wikipedia's stated definition. How are the sugar import quotas socialism, or is it merely popular nowdays to label every overstepping of government as socialism and/or communism?
  - hga 17y ago
    In a loose sense it's not entirely bogus: this is what economists call rent seeking, and the payoff for that is all the greater the bigger and more pervasive the government is. Plus that traditional definition of socialism is mostly historical, direct ownership and equal "access" to the goodies just doesn't work in practice and is ruinous in practice. So when people talk about "socialism" nowadays, they're talking about a diluted form that's in theory more like traditional socialism (e.g. soft Fabian or hard Communism) than corporatist Fascism (the real Italian variety, not Hitler's National Socialism (vs. Communist International Socialism (e.g. the Comintern))).
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    "public ... administration of ... allocation of resources" is socialism. And that's whats happening with sugar.
    - turkishrevenge 17y ago
      The word "public" is used here to mean the State, as in, the current capitalist state, not a worker's state controlled and administered by councils as in socialism. If it were public, as in non-private property, it would be administered by the workers themselves, not agents of the bourgeoisie.
      - 17y ago
surfmike 17y ago
Is this why we use high fructose corn syrup everywhere?
- philk 17y ago
  Yes. The quota system drove the price of sugar up so much that manufacturers switched to the much cheaper alternative.
  - alecst 17y ago
    That's what he was asking. I think he meant "is this the only reason why we use high fructose corn syrup everywhere" to which I think the answer is "no." There's no shortage of corn subsidies, and farmers have been looking for new ways of utilizing corn for years. HFCS has been one of the ways which has payed off. Additionally, fructose is rated higher than sucrose on the Relative Sweetness Scale (140 and 100 respectively) so that less product may be used. But yes, the above reason is vital.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      Actually more HFCS is used than sugar for some reason... I'm looking for a reference on this, but haven't found one yet. I know I read it somewhere.
  - seiji 17y ago
    Seen on a 12-pack of Pepsi on Sunday: "Retro Pepsi! Now with Real Sugar! (limited time only)"
    - joezydeco 17y ago
      And you know what? It's really really good. So is kosher Coke and Mountain Dew Throwback.
- pmorici 17y ago
  You might be interested in the documentary, King Corn, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/ http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/ The US Government subsidizes corn production to the tune of like $22 an acre or something like that so corn based products are artificially cheap.
rubinelli 17y ago
There is a silver lining here. Without American protectionism, the Brazilian biofuel program wouldn't have left the prototype phase. It was (1) the 70's oil crisis, (2) plenty of sugar and (3) nowhere to sell it that made alcohol economically viable.
- daeken 17y ago
  However, this still damages Americans because we've decided to tax sugar cane ethanol imports as a means to promote domestic ethanol development. This means that the less efficient corn ethanol is cheaper than sugar cane ethanol. Hmm, sounds like another corn product that's replaced sugar in the US.
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    Corn crops are large; is it even feasible to suggest replacing corn ethanol with sugar? Isn't the total sugar production an insignificant contributor to potential ethanol supply? Sure the import restrictions are onerous, but not a significant factor in the ethanol debate
    - warfangle 17y ago
      Corn production is an insignificant contributor to potential ethanol supply. Ethanol is a white elephant. To fuel even 1/10 of our needs by ethanol, we would need 53 million acres of farmland dedicated to growing fuel-corn (the process of which is 170% efficient, requiring 70% more energy to grow than can be extracted via ethanol). In 2006, we only harvest 309 million acres of farmland. The only reason ethanol is gaining steam is politics. It has no potential whatsoever to become even a major fuel additive. We are much better off investing those corn subsidies that keep corn ethanol cheap into batteries for plugin-hybrids, alternative nuclear sources (LFTR comes to mind), and better mass transport. Especially for freight.
      - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
        The energy argument is stale: consider this article. To quote their conclusion: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain." http://www.klenergycorp.com/pdf/USDA_Shapouri.pdf http://www.klenergycorp.com/pdf/USDA_Shapouri.pdf
liquidben 17y ago
"Protectionists warned that if sugar tariffs were lifted, then the value of slaves working on the sugar plantations would collapse thus causing a general fall in slave values throughout the South." Sugar tariffs originally supported the slave industry. There's a muckraking point against HFCS that I hadn't heard before. I'm surprised it hasn't been exploited.

50 points by alecst 17y ago

From this 1998 OP - "The only thing that could make American sugar cane farmers world-class competitive would be massive global warming." Gee whiz - sugar was also the reason why the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol!

InclinedPlane 17y ago
The US signed it but the Senate didn't ratify it (they voted 95-0 against it). Which is for the best really because it was a poorly conceived idea even, perhaps especially, if you think man-made CO2 emissions would lead to a world catastrophe in the near future. Note that most of the signatories to the Kyoto protocols have not lived up to them.
- JacobAldridge 17y ago
  I guess my point - poorly made - was elaborating on the article's observation that Congress and the White House have spent the better part of two centuries doing everything they can to prop up the US sugar industry, and then connecting the observation about global warming to the timing (about 12 months after Kyoto). As a general rule, when a comment or joke takes more words to explain than it did to make originally, that's a darn good sign you missed the mark!
  - ytinas 17y ago
    I disagree. A joke will always be more concise than the explanation of what (possibly) makes it funny.

philk 17y ago

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -- Margaret Thatcher

tentonova2 17y ago
From Wikipedia: Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Of course Wikipedia might be wrong here, but even my rudimentary understanding of "socialism" is aligned with wikipedia's stated definition. How are the sugar import quotas socialism, or is it merely popular nowdays to label every overstepping of government as socialism and/or communism?
- hga 17y ago
  In a loose sense it's not entirely bogus: this is what economists call rent seeking, and the payoff for that is all the greater the bigger and more pervasive the government is. Plus that traditional definition of socialism is mostly historical, direct ownership and equal "access" to the goodies just doesn't work in practice and is ruinous in practice. So when people talk about "socialism" nowadays, they're talking about a diluted form that's in theory more like traditional socialism (e.g. soft Fabian or hard Communism) than corporatist Fascism (the real Italian variety, not Hitler's National Socialism (vs. Communist International Socialism (e.g. the Comintern))).
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  "public ... administration of ... allocation of resources" is socialism. And that's whats happening with sugar.
  - turkishrevenge 17y ago
    The word "public" is used here to mean the State, as in, the current capitalist state, not a worker's state controlled and administered by councils as in socialism. If it were public, as in non-private property, it would be administered by the workers themselves, not agents of the bourgeoisie.
    - 17y ago

surfmike 17y ago

Is this why we use high fructose corn syrup everywhere?

philk 17y ago
Yes. The quota system drove the price of sugar up so much that manufacturers switched to the much cheaper alternative.
- alecst 17y ago
  That's what he was asking. I think he meant "is this the only reason why we use high fructose corn syrup everywhere" to which I think the answer is "no." There's no shortage of corn subsidies, and farmers have been looking for new ways of utilizing corn for years. HFCS has been one of the ways which has payed off. Additionally, fructose is rated higher than sucrose on the Relative Sweetness Scale (140 and 100 respectively) so that less product may be used. But yes, the above reason is vital.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    Actually more HFCS is used than sugar for some reason... I'm looking for a reference on this, but haven't found one yet. I know I read it somewhere.
- seiji 17y ago
  Seen on a 12-pack of Pepsi on Sunday: "Retro Pepsi! Now with Real Sugar! (limited time only)"
  - joezydeco 17y ago
    And you know what? It's really really good. So is kosher Coke and Mountain Dew Throwback.
pmorici 17y ago
You might be interested in the documentary, King Corn, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/ http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/ The US Government subsidizes corn production to the tune of like $22 an acre or something like that so corn based products are artificially cheap.

rubinelli 17y ago

There is a silver lining here. Without American protectionism, the Brazilian biofuel program wouldn't have left the prototype phase. It was (1) the 70's oil crisis, (2) plenty of sugar and (3) nowhere to sell it that made alcohol economically viable.

daeken 17y ago
However, this still damages Americans because we've decided to tax sugar cane ethanol imports as a means to promote domestic ethanol development. This means that the less efficient corn ethanol is cheaper than sugar cane ethanol. Hmm, sounds like another corn product that's replaced sugar in the US.
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  Corn crops are large; is it even feasible to suggest replacing corn ethanol with sugar? Isn't the total sugar production an insignificant contributor to potential ethanol supply? Sure the import restrictions are onerous, but not a significant factor in the ethanol debate
  - warfangle 17y ago
    Corn production is an insignificant contributor to potential ethanol supply. Ethanol is a white elephant. To fuel even 1/10 of our needs by ethanol, we would need 53 million acres of farmland dedicated to growing fuel-corn (the process of which is 170% efficient, requiring 70% more energy to grow than can be extracted via ethanol). In 2006, we only harvest 309 million acres of farmland. The only reason ethanol is gaining steam is politics. It has no potential whatsoever to become even a major fuel additive. We are much better off investing those corn subsidies that keep corn ethanol cheap into batteries for plugin-hybrids, alternative nuclear sources (LFTR comes to mind), and better mass transport. Especially for freight.
    - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
      The energy argument is stale: consider this article. To quote their conclusion: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain." http://www.klenergycorp.com/pdf/USDA_Shapouri.pdf http://www.klenergycorp.com/pdf/USDA_Shapouri.pdf

liquidben 17y ago

"Protectionists warned that if sugar tariffs were lifted, then the value of slaves working on the sugar plantations would collapse thus causing a general fall in slave values throughout the South." Sugar tariffs originally supported the slave industry. There's a muckraking point against HFCS that I hadn't heard before. I'm surprised it hasn't been exploited.