<< Hawaii Bye Bye | Home | Why I have gone silent >>

A Corny Argument

A few weeks ago the lovely DonnaK posted a list of Mikey’s latest idiocies, as well as her critique of them.  One particularly stuck out in my mind.

Proposal Three: Ban high fructose corn syrup. “And I will be the poster boy of that campaign.” Earlier in his lecture, Moore suggested that corn syrup’s historical dominance as a sweetener was a result of government collusion with large agribusinesses.

This is, simply put, one of the most retarded things he has ever said.  The EXACT OPPOSITE is true.  The prevalence of HFCS is a direct result of government interfering in the free market, and it was implement by the Grand Socialist himself FDR.  Here’s what I wrote FOUR YEARS AGO on my personal blog regarding this issue.

There’s one aspect to this that this article neglected to mention.  The next time you buy a Coke look at the ingredients.  You won’t see sugar, you’ll see “high fructose corn syrup.” This is sugar syrup made from corn, and it’s used in almost everything.  Why?  Because the high tariffs on imported sugar inflate the price to such a high level that using corn syrup is far less expensive.  The main group lobbying for these high sugar tariffs is a corporation called Archer Daniels Midland.  Why should ADM care about sugar tariffs?  Because, you guessed it, ADM are the makers of, among other things, high fructose corn syrup.  There’s absolutely no reason that Coca Cola couldn’t be made, as it used to be, with sugar, except for the artificially high price caused by government interference in free trade. 

To put it in simple terms, the government puts tariffs on imported sugar in order to keep the price artificially high.  (I have heard estimates that sugar is five to ten times more expensive than it would be if subject to market forces.) The makers of HFCS only have to make their product a penny or two cheaper than sugar to make it an economically attractive alternative.  Coca Cola alone must save millions, of not billions, of dollars by saving those few pennies with each batch of Coke they produce. 

Why is business able to collude with government?  If government were to get out of the sugar price support business, and let the market decide, you would have fewer products using HFCS because sugar would immediately drop in price.  What Mikey is proposing with his ban on HFCS is treating the symptom, not the disease itself.  If the government were not involved in sugar prices, then there would be no avenue for business to collude with them to keep the price of sugar high.  Mike is therefore correct in stating that it is collusion between agribusiness and government, but he implies some kind of corporate conspiracy, when the simple solution is to just end all farm subsidies once and for all.

So, let’s look at this in the context of the current election.  Cato has a great post up about the policy proposals of the specific candidates regarding this very issue.

In an article in today’s Congress Daily, key sugar lobby groups praised Senator Obama’s newfound enthusiasm for the U.S. sugar program. As a senator from the candy-making state of Illinois, he was none too fond of the price supports and import restrictions that raised input prices for factories in his state.

Not anymore. In a letter to sugar groups, Senator Obama gave assurances that while he “has concerns” with the program, he would listen to and work with them to “reward [their] hard work with policies that will keep [their] industry and your communities strong”. Oh dear.

One former lobbyist pointed out that “…the candidate now “represents a broader range of interest” than when he was a state legislator…[and] added that Obama has never voted against the sugar program and supported the 2008 Farm Bill.” McCain, on the other hand, would likely have lost the support of formerly Republican-leaning farmers because “…[he] has consistently opposed the program and agreed with President Bush’s decision to veto the Farm Bill.” Another lobbyist said that “Sen. McCain seems to want to radically alter [the farm safety net].”

Thus McCain’s policies would achieve the result that Mikey wants, fewer people using products sweetened with HFCS.  And Obama, with his socialist proclivities, will work to keep this very same collusion between agribusiness and government in place.

See, the issue here is that Michael Moore is a died-in-the-wool socialist.  Add to that the fact that his admirers are, generally, not the brightest people in the world.  All you have to do is mention the word “corporation” and it’s like you said “child rapist.” The solution is clear—if you want to avoid collusion between business and government, get the fucking government out of business.  As long as government retains the power to keep price subsides in place, corporations will always have an interest in making sure that government stays there.  It’s much easier to make a few campaign contributions to key legislators than it is to, y’know, actually compete in a free and open market.

Comments