Airliners would get smaller, and the passengers could set their own schedule and agenda (corporate jets for the wealthy, and nothing for everyone else), but the airlines cannot make money subsidizing air travel for people who cannot afford it. Farmers cannot make money feeding the poor, and people who don't pay taxes don't deserve police and fire protection, or any other government regulatory benefits. Throw out the EPA while you're at it, if you can't afford to pay for clean air, you don't deserve it.

This always happens during an economic downturn, and then some political opportunists come along and promise to make the airlines work, like they promised to make the rail system work, like they promise to repair the highways and bridge infrastructure. In the case of the last problem this is why people drive SUVs and Hummers, because America's highways are an adventure.

The politicians who fixed these problems in Europe in the 30's created worse problems. The populist uprising that Howard Dean suggested never materialized. So where do we go from here?

By your logic ethanol makes sense, if corn is an undervalued commodity. The relationship between corn and beef is not directly correlated, like all commodities one can be substituted for another. Cattle can be fattened on any grain mix.

The issue has been given background by analogy through the oil markets, which as one analyst said, at least in the US situation, are not really delivery markets. The struggle that goes on between producers and wholesale buyers in the grains, remains a lopsided relationship. All free and open markets are not fair.

By extension this is one reason core inflation remains low, even while costs and demand for these commodities puts upward pressure on prices. The producers simply don't have the money to drive prices where they should be.

That wholesale advantage has broken down in the oil markets, but it remains a working part of how grain markets work, which Bush probably considered when he promoted his ethanol program/ All that happens in the end, is that the grain markets become more speculative. There is also the question of government intervention in these markets, first through subsidies, which help the producer, and secondly through the futures market, where market regulators meet and discuss policy regularly with government officials, and then set margin requirements. Like casino game operators, they can change the rules, and therfore change the game. (If you want to exclude producers raise the margin requirement, for instance..)

I've often wondered first, how the grain is graded, especially as it concerns international trade, and secondly how it is stored and distributed. One recent article suggests the financial situation for silo owners is very dire. There cost to borrow money has gone up, and the demand market is low? All of this financial manipulation is meant to see that consumers don't pay $30 for a box of cornflakes. (And we just went over this concerning the airlines, you have no right to affordable food, but certainly the system has worked that way for a number of years, is it breaking down?)

There is a great deal of consternation, people saying free markets don't work, ( and wiser heads reminding us we haven't have free markets for a long time) Are subsidies really that far out of line considered the existing situation, and why shouldn't these midwest states start a US OCEC (corn exporting states) as long as they agree to the current market situation in which prices are held artificially low through manipulation?

The deep discount retailers are especially hit hard by fuel costs. Chain stores like WalMart maintain their own fleet of trucks, and they buy fuel in large enough quantities that they qualify for wholesale fuel discounts. The little guys, Family Dollar, Ninety-Nine Cent, etc, all pay the prevailing shipping rates. The deep discount group makes money by picking up the mechandise WalMart doesn't want, overruns, and discontinued items.

Wall Street tends to overhype these companies, because their numbers looked so good during those years when shipper containers full of stuff just showed up at the Port of Entry, and there was more stuff than buyers could use.

unforunately a lot of the really poor shop at these stores, because they tend to be in neighborhoods where people live, and not outside town like the box stores.

As we enter a recession more people will shop closer to home, to avoid the high price of fuel it takes to drive to the major discount stores. When the deep discount retailers start to run out of merchandise, they already pay more in shipping costs, they will close their doors.

Poor consumer are going to pay more. To make matters worse for the deeps, in rural locations they tend to build next to the WalMart stores. When the deeps start closing their doors those with the smallest rebate checks will be hit hardest.

In the 1980's, before WTO, a Congressional delegation went to Hong Kong to investigate the charges that (state run, prison labor) mainland China was subcontracting for Nike shoes. (reported in the LA Times) They tried to follow the trail into Communist China, but the leads always disappeared. The issue then as now, is what happened to the US consumer money being recycled into China, where did that money go? Of course China holds a trillion in foreign reserves, which in a very real sense is money which cannot be spent. However the politicians in China have diverted capital toward growth in economic development, most of which is in the cities. China is a planned, politburo style economy, although Wall Street seems in love with the possibilities.

American labor would never endure the class warfare that is going on in China at the moment.