

The Great Sugar Shaft - alecst
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp

======
surfmike
Is this why we use high fructose corn syrup everywhere?

~~~
philk
Yes. The quota system drove the price of sugar up so much that manufacturers
switched to the much cheaper alternative.

~~~
alecst
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
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.

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

~~~
tentonova2
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?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
"public ... administration of ... allocation of resources" is socialism. And
that's whats happening with sugar.

~~~
turkishrevenge
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.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
So in America, its worse than in a true socialist state. How about compared to
existing corrupt socialist states? Probably better. I can forgive people
comparing such policies to socialism, since we rarely see true socialism, and
cynically we regard our elected representatives are hardly better than
socialist councils.

~~~
turkishrevenge
Whether you agree or not, everything seen so far has been an iteration of
Stalinism, without question. Additionally, in either a degenerate socialist
state or a capitalist society like the U.S., productive means are most
certainly not under the control of workers in any real capacity. Whether the
said productive means are controlled by a bureaucratic elite from a single
party, or from a "two" party system that unabashedly represents capitalist
interests, the end result is still the same: subjugation of the worker.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Easy to say "subjugation of the worker", in the sense that the worker doesn't
guide policy. But the ideals of capitalism are supposed to work in the
worker's favor, which softens the claim. If the worker values receiving
compensation for what they do, has the right to spend their money as they
please, wants to live in a thriving economy with choices, that is hardly
subjugation. A worker may feel subjugated because they are frustrated by
policy decisions made by others. Is it better in Socialism where the committee
of workers makes the decisions, if the worker isn't on that committee? How
does it matter that the committee is "closer" to the worker? The subjugation
is the same. (except now the committe is made up of amateurs,but thats another
argument) I think "subjugation" if it exists, is actually the decision by the
governed to submit to the will of the whole. No matter what the system this
"subjugation" must exist - its the foundation of civilization.

~~~
turkishrevenge
> "But the ideals of capitalism are supposed to work in the worker's favor"

The ideals of capitalism favor the bosses. Such a statment is very telling.
You've obviously never read any literature on the subject, nor much about
history of worker struggles, both in the U.S and abroad, that much is clear.
At least I've read enough about neoliberal policies and the ideas that form
the basis of capitalism in order to sufficiently criticize it.

> "If the worker values receiving compensation for what they do, has the right
> to spend their money as they please, wants to live in a thriving economy
> with choices, that is hardly subjugation"

What does this really mean? By your interpretation, capitalism is always
"thriving" and people that live under it are always willfully and gainfully
employed. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years,
you're aware of the joblessness that is plaguing not only the U.S., but the
world. The capitalism of yesteryear is hardly what we have now, and the
dynamicism offered up by neoliberal policies is essentially over. What say you
about the inevitable crises of capitalism? What about the increasing pace and
severity of boom and bust cycles? Even in the worst dictatorial Stalinist
regime, they at least have full employment. That's more than we can say about
our system.

> "A worker may feel subjugated because they are frustrated by policy
> decisions made by others. Is it better in Socialism where the committee of
> workers makes the decisions, if the worker isn't on that committee?"

Your point is moot, as in a worker controlled factory, the actual committees
are comprised of the workers themselves, or at the very least the people they
directly elect from amongst the factory workforce. The representatives are
also subject to instant recall, and managerial positions are routinely
rotated. Every major decision from controlling production, to working hours,
to health benefit and sick time is decided democratically. As such, the
workers in the factory have a vested interest in its survival and productive
capability. Additionallty, since the "managerial" aspects of running the
factory merely deal with administration of the daily tasks, it is divested of
its character of authority. Any worker can and will occupy the position
traditionally held by the boss at a given time.

None of this is fanstasy. It has happened several times throughout the
capitalist epoch, most notably in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war (see
[http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgof...](http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html))
and the Soviet Union, immediately following the October revolution to about
the 1930, before degeneration at the hands of the state bureaucracy fully set
in. For a more current example, see Mondragón
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n>) the world's largest worker
controlled cooperative.

> " The subjugation is the same...No matter what the system this "subjugation"
> must exist - its the foundation of civilization."

We're not talking about the idea of the social contract and the rule of law.
Subjugation in this sense refers to the subjugation of the worker under a
system of wage labor. Tell me, when a worker, through his or her labor
produces a certain amount of value for his employer in the form of profit, yet
receives only a fraction of that generated value back in the form of wages,
how is that not exploitation? The only reason such a situation persists stems
from the fact that the owner possesses the productive means (a factory, office
building, machinery, a mine, etc.), while the worker only possesses his own
labor. All he can do is sell it in order to survive. It is his only recourse.

But you say "What stops him from starting his own business and becoming rich
like the boss?"

As a prerequisite, one needs a willingness to exploit one's fellow human
beings for profit. Logistically speaking though, not everyone can be a boss,
as by definition, a boss (and production in general) cannot exist without
workers. Even barring that, credit is necessary to initially start operations.
When banks aren't lending to make a small business loans to consumers, it is
nearly impossible to start a business, as the case right now.

------
rubinelli
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
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
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
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
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>

~~~
warfangle
Thanks for the research.

It still doesn't seem quite right to me that our government should invest so
much money in something that will reduce food production (and, at the same
time, make corn too expensive for people to buy for food in some countries -
this is already happening in latin america[1], though Mexico has since set an
upper limit on tortilla prices[2]) when world hunger is an important issue.
The only sources I could find for this were two years old; not sure if things
have improved or worsened in the meantime.

[1] <http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18173/?a=f> [2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/americas/19tortillas...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/americas/19tortillas.html)

------
liquidben
"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.

------
JacobAldridge
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
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
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
I disagree. A joke will always be more concise than the explanation of what
(possibly) makes it funny.

