Slashdot Mirror


US Agricultural Economists Say Bacon Shortage Is Hogwash

PolygamousRanchKid writes "The economics of the current drought are likely to nose up prices for bacon and other pork products next year, by as much as 10 percent. But U.S. agricultural economists are dismissing reports of a global bacon shortage that lent sizzle to headlines and Twitter feeds last week. Simply put, the talk of scarcity is hogwash. 'Use of the word 'shortage' caused visions of (1970s-style) gasoline lines in a lot of people's heads, and that's not the case,' said Steve Meyer, president of Iowa-based Paragon Economics and a consultant to the National Pork Producers Council and National Pork Board. 'If the definition of shortage is that you can't find it on the shelves, then no, the concern is not valid. If the concern is higher cost for it, then yes.'"

137 comments

  1. As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary News by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yea verily, we may have escaped the terrifying "bacon shortage" foretold by our farmer-sages but as a ones-and-zeros smith, I will reveal a much scarier future that is imminent and knocking at our door: a ones and zeros shortage. Yes, that's right, you heard me, Earth has reached its quota of ones and zeros. As our localized reserves of information go up, elsewhere in the universe entropy must be accounted for in order to preserve the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We have all but destroyed Alpha Centuri with viscous randomness as we greedily ate up our own terrestrial order and logic. Physics has heard of our blasphemy and she is vengeful!

    What can you do? Well, as a developer who can write in many languages including C, I will be able to squeeze much more usage out of your precious ones and zeros than, say, my Indian counterparts. Oh, sure, now software is cheap but the demand is imminent and workers like myself will be harder to find than a two on your hard drive. Knowing that violent unrest will break out when people can no longer access their Farmvilles and pornography, I offer my services at a meager rate so nigh our hour of darkness. Friends, readers, Romneys, rich and potential employers -- I am not asking for much to protect your software as a ones and zeros guardian ... a hair below the capital gains rate will feed me peanuts and allow me to upgrade my housing from pizza boxes to refrigerator boxes.

    Thou hath wrought the wrath of thine swine overlords and thou hath felt its mighty cloven hoof. Now I am simply asking you that, in your cellars where you have squirreled pound upon pound of bacon inside deep freeze upon deep freeze inside freight container upon freight container, you employ me and house me to ensure all your computing needs are safe and secure among thine horded cured brine meats.

    I urge you, take this offer now before the coming very real and very well explained (see above) shortage renders my colleagues and I safe inside massive corporations and extremely financially secured without need for employ.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Nothing to see here by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The concern is increased prices, it has never been that you won't be able to get bacon but that you will have to pay twice as much for it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well with the hype about this, politicians are sure to step in and "solve" this problem. Price controls and agricultural policy meddling will bring about shortages.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by stevew · · Score: 1

      Yes it was - but it was all a rumor put out by the New York Mayor's office. This is the next thing Bloomberg is planning on banning from entering New York City. So he figured he get ahead of the curve and justify his ban on the fact that there was ALREADY a shortage!

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    3. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      speaking as a card-carrying Republican, I would suggest that perhaps not everyone DESERVES bacon. I see no reason we should provide bacon to people that don't work for it. I'm sick and tired of going to the store to buy bacon, and on the way home I see people carrying bacon down the street that they were given for free. It makes my bacon that much less valuable. If the price of bacon doubles tomorrow, that just means the freeloaders are getting a more valuable handout.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are Americans so obese that they can't live without cutting their bacon intake in half? Jesus fuck, who gives a shit about this except restaurant owners and the people who produce the damn thing?

    5. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concern is increased prices, it has never been that you won't be able to get bacon but that you will have to pay twice as much for it.

      increased prices=shortage (...for those that can not afford it! and vice-versa, shortage=increased prices) - abundance=decreased prices (...and vice-versa!).

    6. Re:Nothing to see here by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      The concern is increased prices, it has never been that you won't be able to get bacon but that you will have to pay twice as much for it.

      It's good ole supply and demand. Raise prices, reduce demand. It's how we are currently dealing with peak oil. People don't realize but for the first time in decades demand for gasoline in the US is actually down. Five years ago the US was pushing Saudi Arabia to pump more to control prices. When's the last time you heard demands for more pumping? It's the same with demands on pork. As prices go up consumption will simply go down until it reaches a balance. The real problem isn't pork it's all grain fed meats which are most meats we consume. Odds are beef prices will be more affected. Truth be told Pigs can eat almost anything. Cattle are more narrow in the dietary needs. Even chickens can be fed traditional foods like millet. Cattle are mostly fed grass, corn and soy, all of which are affected by the drought.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spewing your cartoonish understanding of conservative economics does not change the FACT that price controls = shortages.

    8. Re:Nothing to see here by CommieLib · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does get tiring explaining basic economics every few months. Look...

      Farmer Brown (or, more likely, subsector 12 of Hive 11 of the Archer Daniels Midland Collective) raised x pigs over the past couple of years. The value of x was determined by figuring out how much money they could make versus raising, say, chickens. The price of pork has risen now, so now the value of x has risen. There's a lag, as we have to wait for the piglets to mature, but farmers are in it to make money - the price has spoke, the market wants more pork.

      So if we do engage a price control, that is, we limit the amount that Farmer Brown can charge for the pork, he won't trim his sails, he'll just keep raising chickens, despite that what people really want is more pork. A price control is a statement that "yes, people want this more, but you cannot profit from it." And thus people will not take the extra measures to provide it that people would prefer.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    9. Re:Nothing to see here by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      As an american who doesnt eat bacon, I share your incredulity. Do people seriously have some kind of bacon addiction?

    10. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A shortage means you can't buy it any price. That is decidedly different than an increase in price. Increasing the price prevents a shortage. In the short term, some people decide they would rather spend their money on other things (reducing demand) and in the long term, more farmers will raise pigs since it's more profitable (increasing supply).

    11. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity by not giving a shit about a bit of bacon being higher priced.

      *bow*

    12. Re:Nothing to see here by MilwaukeeMadAss · · Score: 1

      Considering that the past several years there's been some kind of effort to wrap/inject damn near everything with bacon, you can at least try to understand the panic that would ensue over a pork shortage. How on earth can you expect any decent, hard-working American to enjoy their sauce-dripping, triple-decker cheese burger WITHOUT bacon? What do you think Americans are ... savages?

    13. Re:Nothing to see here by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Whether if people would actually prefer is not that clear. Mike Munger (an economist from Duke), who is very much against price controls for obvious reasons, talks about a event where ice sellers where arrested for "price gouging" (there were shortages in the supply and high temperatures) and the people who were buying the ice actually applauded.

      That said, I assume the same won't happen with pork products.

    14. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm finding it hard to explain what's funny about bacon, but if you think that Americans will find it difficult to consume less bacon, you're missing the joke. I've got bacon flavored mayonnaise, hot sauce, and lollipops (I've never tried any of them, but I have them). I made bacon and habenero flavored vodka (which I did try, and was amazing). Down the street from me, there's a bar that has a bacon maple syrup whiskey, that comes with a slice of bacon in it, and there's a donut shop with a maple long john with a strip of bacon on top. These aren't things that you go and order every day. They're things you order for the fun of it or to say that you tried it, like the scorpion shot from a bar in Milwaukee that comes with a vodka soaked whole scorpion in it. Maybe trying / doing / eating weird things just to say you did it isn't your thing, but a lot of people enjoy it, if only for the conversation.

      And THAT is America's obsession with bacon (except for fat people they really do love bacon).

    15. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was there a shortage of ice, or was the vendor just jacking up prices cause he could. Also how high did the prices go.

      If there was no shortage, and he raised prices extremely high (say more then 300% of typical) then there is a logical argument that he was price gouging. How society should react to that I am torn about though.

    16. Re:Nothing to see here by azalin · · Score: 1

      What do you think Americans are ... savages?

      Isn't that exactly what we called the native Americans?

    17. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacon has essentially become a popular culinary meme, equal parts actual enjoyment, humor and WTF-ness. I only eat bacon about once a month, although I still see some humor and creativity in some of the over the top bacon creations that end up online. Some friends of mine are even more amused by such things and will read and link plenty of bacon junk from online, yet only actually eat bacon once in a blue moon when inspired to reproduce some crazy thing they see online. I'm not sure how much correlation there is between bacon crazing online and actual bacon consumption.

    18. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there almost always is a price to get something, even in actual shortages. Unless something is a one of a kind/non-reproducible, or under really heavy government control (as in way beyond consumer goods, e.g. nuclear weapons), there will always be people willing to sell you such things for some price. Even in those few exceptions, there are people who will try to get what you want for a high enough price.

    19. Re:Nothing to see here by MilwaukeeMadAss · · Score: 1

      But ... they didn't have triple cheese burgers with bacon. And guns. Let's not forget the guns.

    20. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was raise prices to stick it to the 'poor' so the rich can roll in the money?

    21. Re:Nothing to see here by Kevin108 · · Score: 1

      That's not a shortage - that's just market forces. And the cost of a given product has to rise in order to maintain the profit involved in creating said product. If people can't make money doing it, they won't do it. Then we'd have a shortage.

      Bacon bacon bacon! We're making the moves on you! You're bacon!

      --

      It's a perfect time for being wasted.
      A perfect time to watch the stars.
      - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
    22. Re:Nothing to see here by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      There are about a hundred things which would be a better use of the fat in bacon in terms of "flavor to fat" ratio. Ice cream, for example, is far more delicious for the amount of fat you take in. A good hamburger is, IMO, much more delicious once you throw tomato and ketchup on it, and has a fraction of the fat of bacon.

      Bacon might be one of the most overrated foods in existence.

    23. Re:Nothing to see here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Are Americans so obese that they can't live without cutting their bacon intake in half?

      I just came back from the store where I purchased the largest chest freezer that they have. I intend to stockpile a month's worth of bacon for myself until the crisis recedes. My wife indicated that perhaps I should have also purchased a freezer for her.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Nothing to see here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, but you are talking about once something hits an asymptote on the demand curve. We are talking about the linear-ish region here.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    25. Re:Nothing to see here by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      People don't realize but for the first time in decades demand for gasoline in the US is actually down

      A lot of this has to do with the price of natural gas. We have also improved fleet efficiency, increased the ethanol percentage in fuel, oh... and we decimated our economy. :)

      But seriously, the natural gas phenomenon is so strong that US carbon emissions are even down 20% off of their peak.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Nothing to see here by FreeFire · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are Americans so obese that they can't live without cutting their bacon intake in half?

      I just came back from the store where I purchased the largest chest freezer that they have. I intend to stockpile a month's worth of bacon for myself until the crisis recedes. My wife indicated that perhaps I should have also purchased a freezer for her.

      Is she planning to freeze herself until the crisis is over?

    27. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a rather more concrete and specific claim, different from what that reply was arguing against.

    28. Re:Nothing to see here by firewrought · · Score: 1

      Was there a shortage of ice, or was the vendor just jacking up prices cause he could. Also how high did the prices go.

      If there was no shortage, and he raised prices extremely high (say more then 300% of typical) then there is a logical argument that he was price gouging.

      Link to story. Article implies they were charging at least 4.5x the non-emergency cost of ice. Note that some places have very restrictive definitions of gouging; in Alabama for instance, it's unlawful to charge more than 1.25x the previous 30-day rolling average during a declared emergency.

      How society should react to that I am torn about though.

      I think we have a natural distaste for explicit gouging (as opposed to the hidden type that teleco's and cable companies and patent trolls get away with). Munger's article makes a good anecdotal case that legislative responses to this emotional reaction aren't necessarily in the best interest of disaster victims. OTOH, there are counterexamples where it seems like businesses really abused public trust (like the hotels that jacked up prices on 9/11 to milk stranded air passengers).

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    29. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are Americans so obese that they can't live without cutting their bacon intake in half?

      I just came back from the store where I purchased the largest chest freezer that they have. I intend to stockpile a month's worth of bacon for myself until the crisis recedes. My wife indicated that perhaps I should have also purchased a freezer for her.

      Is she planning to freeze herself until the crisis is over?

      No. In the spirit of true love, she was offering to allow herself to be turned into bacon in order to satiate her spouse's uncontrollable need for his daily bacon fix.

    30. Re:Nothing to see here by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1
      Costco in our area has raised Bacon prices 40-50%. I'll have to see what the regular stores, Vons, Ralphs, etc are doing price-wise... as 40-50 is a damned far-cry from 10. If it's not due to the so-called shortage, then they are just pulling something similar to their Coffee-commodity-hike:

      2 Years ago:
      Coffee 32oz: $7.99 ---- 25c/oz
      Today:
      Coffee 40oz: $16.39 -- 40c/oz :: 60% increase.

    31. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what we called the Injuns.

    32. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa whoa whoa. Take a step back. Are you actually saying that price controls don't lead to shortages? And you're the one that is criticizing the grandparent's understanding of economics?

      Price controls (below market price) pretty much always invariably lead to product shortages by definition. This isn't really a point of argument.

      I'm really hoping I am just misunderstanding your post and I have been befallen by Poe's Law. Especially since it was modded +4 Insightful.

    33. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you watch the markets hog prices will go up probably about 10% which they will use to explain why bacon is twice as much as it was before hog prices went up 10%

    34. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? I was actually joking about the stereotype. I realize it's one. I have many American friends, none of them are fat, and they all have a healthy lifestyle.

      But unless I'm seriously underestimating the sheer size of the gourmet bacon industry, you simply reinforced the stereotype I did not intend to use in a serious manner.

  3. This is real by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    This isn't made up at all, there is a pork shortage, as in much less pork available now then at the same time last year.

    1. Re:This is real by vlm · · Score: 2

      This isn't made up at all, there is a pork shortage, as in much less pork available now then at the same time last year.

      The point is that in the USA we'll just pay more, but in China I would expect a complete absence of Pork Fried Rice or whatever. Also no Pork Carnitas being served south of the border.

      Kind of like a rice shortage means people will starve, its just starvation won't be in the USDA's territory...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:This is real by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Less pork available later. There's more pork now as the market is about to be flooded with cheaper pork before corn prices get too high.

    3. Re:This is real by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      Hell I'm just going to buy some pigs and have fresh pork.

  4. Government Economists by tmosley · · Score: 2

    Don't know the difference between shortage and rationing as a result of price controls.

    No wonder we are so totally fucked in all things economic.

    1. Re:Government Economists by dkleinsc · · Score: 3

      A shortage is a situation where the demand for a product at a particular price is higher than the supply of that product. Basic capitalism responds to that by raising the price of the product until demand matches supply (this goes back to at least Adam Smith, possibly earlier). Hence the price of the product reflects, in part, the scarcity of that product.

      And in the case of bacon (or other forms of pig meat), there are plenty of substitute goods, so what will happen is that people who are willing and able to pay the higher price for it will get it, and those that aren't won't get it. It's that simple. And longer term, because the prices are higher some people who would have done other businesses will focus on producing hogs because that's where the money is, which means the problem will solve itself.

      Isn't amazing when capitalism does what it's supposed to?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Government Economists by pkbarbiedoll · · Score: 1

      Neal? Is that you?

      Sure you don't want to retire a few months ahead of schedule?

    3. Re:Government Economists by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Don't know the difference between shortage and rationing as a result of price controls.

      The difference is that under rationing everybody still gets some, whereas under market pricing people with money can keep having all they want because those with less money get none.

      And, yes, I know that price controls outside special circumstances lead to a reduction of supply longer-term, and are bad. But it is ignorant to think a price hike won't force some people to go without. Many people in the world cannot simply choose to pay more.

    4. Re:Government Economists by fermion · · Score: 1
      There will be less pork and prices will be higher. If pork was not a fungible commodity, this would constitute a shortage, since demand tends to rise over time, if for no other reason than the population increases.

      The reason a pork shortage is not like a gas shortage is because, as mentioned, pork is fungible commodity and people can adapt quickly if the price goes up. Auto fuel, OTOH is not fungible, and special interests has made a great effort to insure cars are not made to use other fuels, and people cannot overnight adjust their fuel use. Consumers cannot replace cars instantly, so everyone who spent the early 70's, or the late 90's, buying cars with 20 gallon fuel tanks that has a range of less than 300 miles were basically stuck with these vehicles and were forced to stand in line for gas. I have seen gas lines in recent memory, all these SUV waiting to fuel up.

      Also in the 70's were a time of great flight to the subarbs, which started after the war. For instance, one suburb in my area double in size every decade between 1970 and 1980. The early residents were there because it was near a major commercial district, but many other later residents were there because of bussing and other issue. Their commute was easily 50 miles a day, which even in the 'fuel efficient' cars of te 70's often meant over 10 gallons a week. When they gas crisis hit, they just couldn't decide not to go to work or buy another car or move. They had to have the fuel, which meant line. It is interesting to note that this suburban area since the 80's only double every 20 years. Since the 90's it has been more efficient to revitalize('gentrify') areas of the city than to use the money for fuel. The question is do you put $300 a month into your car or into your mortgage.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Similarly, freeway congestion, another example of a shortage, can be prevented by eliminating the artificial price ceiling on freeway travel. In other words, by converting existing lanes to express toll lanes. And with no traffic congestion, the freeway would never need to be widened, ever again, at least not to eliminate traffic congestion. (Maybe to increase traffic throughput and increase economic activity, but that's not typically the justification given to widen a freeway.)

      But for some reason, suggest that the market should determine the price of freeway travel, and everybody goes nuts.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    6. Re:Government Economists by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What constitutes a shortage is kind of ambiguous in a market where price adjusts to match supply and demand. If there's still bacon on the shelves and selling, but you can't afford any, is there a shortage or not?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But for some reason, suggest that the market should determine the price of freeway travel, and everybody goes nuts [greatergre...ington.org].

      In most of the world, and in the US cities of New York and Washington, DC - the poor people live in the surrounding areas and need to commute in to the city center - or they need to commute to another suburb. They are tied very tightly to their car, yet public transit mostly sucks in the suburbs.

      So unless you dramatically improve suburban public transit or come up with a way to let the poor live closer to the jobs, imposing a use tax on roads is highly regressive. We could probably figure out a way to mitigate this, but it is a problem.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Extremely short-term rationing can be acceptable (e.g. after a natural disaster), but producers need to know that the long term price will be allowed to float.

      If it is charity we are after, then direct subsidy or introduction of an alternative is almost always going to be better in the long run.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Government Economists by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      That would work if and only if there was a viable substitute to driving down the freeways. Right now, the only substitute I'm aware of in a lot of areas is taking the surface streets rather than the freeways, which would just make the problem worse.

      Viable substitutes that might actually work include commuter rail systems combined with subway / light rail (Boston has had quite a bit of success with that), and for longer distances a high-speed auto train might work (e.g. you drive onto the train, which stops every 30 miles, drive off the train at the appropriate stop and continue on to where you're going). But most every option I can imagine involves significant infrastructure investments and cultural shifts.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If there's still bacon on the shelves and selling, but you can't afford any, is there a shortage or not?

      I think if the price made such a huge jump that your consumption goes from "frequently" to "zero" then you could probably justifiably call it a shortage. When the supply disruption is so large that the demand curve completely changes in character from a simple poly or linear line to something with an asymptote.

      I work in manufacturing, so I tend to think of a shortage as when we can't get a part at any price.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      imposing a use tax on roads is highly regressive.

      Not imposing a use tax on roads is even more regressive! As a group low-income residents, on average, pay more out-of-pocket with sales taxes for freeways than with tolls.

      So if you are truly concerned about regressive taxes, then you must be in favor of tolls.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    12. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      That would work if and only if there was a viable substitute to driving down the freeways.

      Yes, there are always many viable substitutes for driving, solo, on the freeway, during rush hour.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    13. Re:Government Economists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either your Joke is completely going over my head, or your post deserves a more in-depth logical explanation.

      How in the world would taking existing lanes from a freeway, and converting them to toll lanes help congestion? You're essentially taking away from capacity of a freeway, to create a toll road that not everyone can use. If anything, this will force traffic density on the freeway to INCREASE, making the problem worse.

    14. Re:Government Economists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For instance, one suburb in my area double in size every decade between 1970 and 1980.

      So it quadrupled?

    15. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So if you are truly concerned about regressive taxes, then you must be in favor of tolls.

      Well, sure - if you put together a combination of road tax increases and sales tax decreases that nets a more progressive tax system obviously I'd get on board. Unfortunately, I suspect that in most cases the sales tax would not be reduced so it would just be an additional burden.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You're essentially taking away from capacity of a freeway...

      No, it wouldn't take away capacity. The price would vary according to demand, to maintain optimum throughput at all times.

      When a traffic lane is underutilized, it means the price is too high. When a traffic lane is congested, it means the price is too low. Finding the right price creates what economists call an "equilibrium" where supply equals demand.

      Optimum throughput is impossible to maintain on unpriced lanes. Outside of rush hour they are underutilized, and during rush hour they are congested. This is why unpriced lanes, including HOV lanes, are inferior to managed express toll lanes.

      If anything, this will force traffic density on the freeway to INCREASE...

      No, demand falls as price rises. Remember your demand curve from Econ 101?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    17. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      You may be right that the tax revenue saved on freeway widenings (that will no longer be needed because traffic congestion has been permanently eliminated) will simply be used for something else and the tax rate won't fall, but that's no excuse to avoid making the most efficient use of tax money.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    18. Re:Government Economists by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      pork is fungible commodity ... Auto fuel, OTOH is not fungible

      You keep using that word. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584659/posts

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I just think that a more progressive tax up front would be better. Like a sales tax on all cars to be used for road construction and maintenance. Rich people buy more expensive cars, so they would pay more tax. People who drive more miles buy more cars, so they would pay more tax. You could even exempt cars that cost less than 2 or 3 thousand dollars. Base the tax on the Blue Book value, not the sales price. Exempt charities, resellers, and wrecking companies. This would also be easier to collect than a toll, since you already have the infrastructure in place to handle title transfers. Put tolls on the borders of your state to collect from people passing through who won't otherwise pay any use tax.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:Government Economists by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What would you call the situation where you can get it but it'll cost more than the job's worth? I mean imagine a situation where you'll make a loss based on an existing contract or the customer will simply walk away if you try to pass the increase on.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Government Economists by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on whether the price of the individual item increased exponentially, or whether your quote was borderline to begin with.

      I have a friend in the steel business, and he takes losses from time to time when the steel prices go up. It balances out when he makes extra money on a job where the steel prices fall unexpectedly. He learned not to get too hung up on guessing the price of steel just right, but it can make for some rough months when he's consistently losing money.

      And yes, I've asked him about futures contracts and he just stared at me blankly. I don't know if I'm a moron or if he is. I think the problem is that he doesn't really know when a bid would be accepted in a tight enough window, and he can't afford to buy a futures contract for ever bid he submits. And it sounds like neither he nor his supplier were very familiar with them.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:Government Economists by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      So, you're actually saying that if you introduce toll lanes, the demand for those lanes will fall... and the people who previously had that demand will just vanish? Or will they just use the (now more congested) toll-free lanes? Demand for the good whose price increased may fall, but unless you impose tolls on all of the lanes (and then all of the alternate routes), you're just moving the congestion around, almost certainly non-optimally. The only way to actually reduce congestion would be to eliminate alternate routes for those who can't or won't pay the tolls. Which, considering the sort of oligarchic, myopic worldview this represents, is really a pretty good reason to discard this sort of "rational" economic reasoning altogether.

    23. Re:Government Economists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It doubled. There's only one decade between 1970 and 1980.

    24. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      So, you're actually saying that if you introduce toll lanes, the demand for those lanes will fall...

      Correct.

      ...and the people who previously had that demand will just vanish?

      Don't be silly. Some of them will commute outside of rush hour when the toll is lower. Others will carpool. Others will switch to mass transit. Others will ride bicycles. Others will move closer to work. Others will change to a job closer to home.

      Trust me. When the price is set at the going rate determined by supply and demand, the outcome is more optimal than when a price ceiling exists.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    25. Re:Government Economists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you're WAY off dude. If there was a market for toll lanes that is profitable, a private company would make a toll route. Since there isn't, that means that most likely (not saying free market is perfect,) there's not enough demand for a toll road to have faster access.

      Transit is an inelastic demand (remember that from econ 101?) You can't reduce supply and expect demand to fall. The fact that the roads are congested ALREADY implies there is a demand shortage, and yet people aren't adjusting their behavior. I can't very well tell my boss "I'm going to shift my assigned work hours to 2 hours later to avoid rush hour" and I expect many other people can't either.

      Also, no engineer is designing roads for optimum throughput, they're designed so that they can support the peak usage, or at least come close. No engineer thinks "well gee, almost no one is using these roads at 2AM, so they're obviously under utilized."

    26. Re:Government Economists by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you're WAY off dude.

      It's always amusing to hear that from someone who doesn't understand economics.

      If there was a market for toll lanes that is profitable, a private company would make a toll route. Since there isn't, that means that most likely...there's not enough demand for a toll road to have faster access.

      The very existence of traffic congestion (a shortage) is proof that there is more demand than supply, and if you'll recall your demand curve from Econ 101, when there's more demand than supply, the way to reduce demand to the level of supply is to raise the price. Therefore, the existence of traffic congestion means there's enough demand to justify raising the price.

      Transit is an inelastic demand (remember that from econ 101?)

      Good luck trying to prove that demand for transit, or anything else, is perfectly inelastic.

      You can't reduce supply and expect demand to fall.

      That's true, because supply and demand are independent of each other. Reducing supply has no direct effect on demand, but price does. So if you increase the price, demand will fall, even if you also reduce supply.

      The fact that the roads are congested ALREADY implies there is a demand shortage...

      The term "demand shortage" is nonsensical. But the fact that the roads are congested means there is a shortage, yes.

      ...and yet people aren't adjusting their behavior.

      If you've ever avoided driving on the freeway during rush hour, you've adjusted your behavior.

      I can't very well tell my boss "I'm going to shift my assigned work hours to 2 hours later to avoid rush hour" and I expect many other people can't either.

      Some people can.

      Others will change to a completely different shift to avoid rush hour.

      Others will work four tens so they can avoid a round trip each week of rush hour driving.

      Others will consider their commute before they accept their next job.

      Others will change their jobs to avoid driving on the freeway during rush hour.

      Others will carpool, bike, take mass transit, or move closer to work.

      Trust me, demand for driving, alone, on the freeway, during rush hour, isn't perfectly inelastic.

      Also, no engineer is designing roads for optimum throughput, they're designed so that they can support the peak usage, or at least come close. No engineer thinks "well gee, almost no one is using these roads at 2AM, so they're obviously under utilized.

      When an engineer designs only for peak usage, he's being paid by someone with deep pockets who doesn't care about the most cost effective solution.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  5. Economic impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    - Laid-off guys can stop fretting about not being the one to "bring home the bacon", because nobody is

    - Wall Street bankers will have to learn to eat low on the hog

    - In Washington, we'll start to see more "pork pail" projects

    - Schoolkids will grumble about opening their lunchbags and getting "LT sandwiches"

  6. I'll just eat sausage instead by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess I'll just just have to forgo bacon in the morning. I'll just have sausage or ham instead.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think Prosciutto would be a viable choice for breakfast.

    2. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      As you know, the "finer" the sausage, the less meat is in it.

    3. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, turkey bacon. There's probably also some imitation bacon made for vegetarians. Purists will look down their nose at such options, but I look down my nose at people who would call themselves bacon purists. That is, I will when I'm not stuffing my face with crispy strips of cooked meat that taste the same to me and don't cost an arm and a belly.

    4. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by Nidi62 · · Score: 1
      Country ham. No one ever buys it so it's cheap, but it tastes awesome.

      True story: 2 years ago we had a bad snow/ice storm here (well, bad for us). Went to the store afterwards, and pretty much every meat product in the store was bought out, except the country ham. The display was completely full. Grabbed a couple packages, and I had plenty of food to eat for the next few days. Of course, this was a downtown yuppie area, so that kind of thing probably scares them.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by vovin · · Score: 1

      Simple economics.
      'Round here you can find the same grocer in the same city selling pork ribs from 1.59/lb to 3.99/lb depending on the part of the city. Spare ribs are cheap where the posh people are and expensive where poorer people are. The reverse is true for baby back ribs. Basically people prize what they are most familiar with.

      A good country ham (salt cured and air dried) is excellent for making razor thin cuts (prosciutto-style) or soaking and roasting ... Often I find good ham is quite pricey when it's available.

      Personally I will just some smoke my own pork pick nick or butt .. waaay cheaper than bacon and when done correctly the flavor profile is similar, or more intense, depending on which woods you use in your smoke.

    6. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I eat turkey bacon. It is delicious. It may not "look right" before you cook it.but it looks fine after your done, and it tastes great as well. Cheaper then pork, less fat then pork, its a viable alternative.

      My roommates dont even know when I grill out they are eating turkey burgers. Not a complaint yet concerning that either. Again Cheaper and less fat. Not found of how that looks raw either, but it works.

    7. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Yeah right Lisa.

    8. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call myself a bacon purist, but I would call you devoid of taste. Turkey is a good substitute for sausage, and for ground beef mixed into something else. But nothing really substitutes for the particular mix of crispy and fatty that makes bacon bacon. I even had lamb bacon and was disappointed.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Lucky. I can't even find country ham around here. And I'm 5 minutes from the Iowa border. You'd think every pig product possible would be available, but not really. Probably too far north.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:I'll just eat sausage instead by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I don't know, you seem to have sampled more species prepared as bacon than usual, I think most people have only tried pork bacon, not turkey and especially not lamb bacon. You suggest that NOTHING can compare to it. And you call me devoid of taste for suggesting otherwise. Why do you say you wouldn't call yourself a bacon purist?

      I mean, aside from the fact "bacon purist" is a silly and ridiculous term I seem to have made up.

  7. Dictionary Needed Here by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

    Let's all argue over how to spell "shortage" - fairly sure it's not C-R-I-S-I-S.

    1. Re:Dictionary Needed Here by azalin · · Score: 1

      Bacon is a very sensitive topic.

  8. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    In other alarming news, due to the observer effect in physics, it has been determined that increasingly powerful earth telescopes are wrecking havok throughout the observable universe. Intelligent aliens from the Horsehead Nebula sent a message this morning, saying "Knock it off."

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  9. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, at least his post lived up to his sig this time

    --
    which is totally what she said
  10. Bacon Prices On The Rise by cfulton · · Score: 3, Funny

    NOOO. Bacon is the central pillar of my diet. BLTs, Bacon Omelets, Bacon wrapped meat of all kinds, Bacon wrapped bacon. How will I live without my lovely bacon?

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    1. Re:Bacon Prices On The Rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      raise & slaughter your own hogs perhapes?

      Pigs are infact a magical animal, capable of transforming all manner of otherwise inedible food into bacon......

    2. Re:Bacon Prices On The Rise by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Add spam, spam, no bacon, and spam?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:Bacon Prices On The Rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOOO. Bacon is the central pillar of my diet. BLTs, Bacon Omelets, Bacon wrapped meat of all kinds, Bacon wrapped bacon. How will I live without my lovely bacon?

      Eat enough, and you won't have to for long!

    4. Re:Bacon Prices On The Rise by cfulton · · Score: 1

      A hog farming I will go.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    5. Re:Bacon Prices On The Rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stockpile this while you still can.

  11. This story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is making me hungry.

  12. Is this "global" like in the "world series"? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Yes, there's going to be a global shortage. No, nobody reading this will have to go without. Yes, you may find yourself sighing a little and eating a bit less. No, that's not the end of the world. Yes, it will seem like it.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Is this "global" like in the "world series"? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      From an Iranian point of view, there is no bacon shortage. And most likely all other primarily Muslim-countries will agree. Therefore, there is only a 6/7 global shortage in pork. And I guess, that these prices will not rise in China or the EU, which would lead to an African-American-pork shortage (oh yes and Japan and Australia). So in the end there will be a US-pork shortage. And that is a good thing, as US citizens (like their EU counterparts) eat too much meat (which includes pork), which is a bad diet and ruining the planet.

  13. So We're Modding Up Hate Posts Now? by eldavojohn · · Score: 0

    Well, at least his post lived up to his sig this time

    Two hate posts getting modded up? Can't just mod my post down, huh? Duly noted. Guess I'll go somewhere else. Enjoy your site!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So We're Modding Up Hate Posts Now? by somersault · · Score: 2

      If you pay attention, mine is more of a backhanded compliment ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:So We're Modding Up Hate Posts Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you hear? Everyone is replaceable.

  14. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Its funny for the same reason "quoth the kitten, buy some more" is funny on amazon. Creative writing can turn a lame joke into an excellent read. Well done, eldavojohn.

  15. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by somersault · · Score: 1

    wreaking*

    HAND

    --
    which is totally what she said
  16. Which usually means that... by xded · · Score: 1

    If price didn't increase, you wouldn't be able to get bacon... Either this, or rise in price means there will be (more) taxes on bacon.

  17. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    both

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  18. No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once the election is over, pork production will increase significantly. It already exceeds the money supply though but the presses are working around on that!

  19. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worries about the ones and zeroes shortage. We'll have plenty from recycling all of the iOS Fart Apps.

  20. Conver tto Islam you infidels .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Convert to Islam all you infidels, and then you will never worry about bacon prices ever again ...

  21. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by somersault · · Score: 1

    No, you don't "wreck" havoc. You wreak havoc. Pronounced "reek". Wreck is pronounced "rehck". Oh also, it's havoc. Havok is a Physics engine..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  22. Political platform by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    I am going to run for government on the platform of creating a Strategic Bacon Reserve. My campaign slogan? "The kind of pork you can get behind!"

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Political platform by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      I would call it the Federal Bacon Institute.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Political platform by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Federal (Bacon) Reserve. I hereby nominate Nidi62 as Chairperson.

    3. Re:Political platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My campaign slogan? "The kind of pork you can get behind!"

      Not sure I'd want to vote for a politician who boasts of porking behinds.

    4. Re:Political platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Id call it the BLT trust. Bacon Long Term Trust.

    5. Re:Political platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can get together with the Canadian Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve and have a Pancake and Bacon breakfast .... to foster international relations ....

  23. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, you don't "wreck" havoc. You wreak havoc. Pronounced "reek". Wreck is pronounced "rehck". Oh also, it's havoc. Havok is a Physics engine..

    Oh, now you're just wringing amoc.

  24. Nixon, not Carter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're incorrect.

    Nixon imposed price controls on November 27, 1973, as part of the response to the Yom Kippur war and the oil-producing states' actions to cut oil exports to the United States.

    Carter began deregulation of oil prices in April 1979.

  25. Not only that by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The decease in availability they are predicting is about 1%. In the US that means we'll "only" be able to eat about 40 pounds of pork products per person per year.

    I really can't see how you'd define that as a "shortage" in any reasonable parlance. We aren't taking about something where the price will have to skyrocket because very little will be available (or that if the price was kept low it would be out of stock everywhere).

    1. Re:Not only that by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      In the US that means we'll "only" be able to eat about 40 pounds of pork products per person per year.

      To use your example: Pork was at $0.80 / lb in May of this year. Now, if we can only eat 40 lbs per person per year, but we want to eat 50 lbs per person per year, then the way that capitalism demands that we handle this product is send the price to $1.00 / lb, which means people who want to eat 50 lbs of pork at $0.80 (for $40) now can only eat 40 lbs at $1.00 for the same price. Those who really really want pork and can afford it will pay that $1.00 / lb, those who don't will switch to cheaper substitute goods. Now, if you're somebody for whom that $10 price difference is a big deal, you're going to do without pork and instead eat something else. It's not a disaster, but it definitely means that you don't get the pork you want.

      So the reasons you don't see it as similar to, say, the 1970's gas crisis:
      1. The price difference doesn't appear to significantly affect you. If you were poor enough that $10 made the difference between making ends meet and not, then it would be a bigger deal.
      2. There are viable substitutes for pork (e.g. poultry, beef, lamb, fish), and there's minimal barriers to switch: Just buy something else for dinner. By comparison, there aren't very many viable substitutes for gasoline, and switching away from it was extremely difficult and expensive.
      3. There was a much greater shortage of gasoline in the 1970's than there is a shortage of pork now.

      The difference is not of kind, but of degree.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Not only that by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think "shortage" is when supply is exhausted. I work in manufacturing. When we have an order for 1000 machines, and we only have parts on hand to build 900 - that can be a "shortage". There are some parts with long lead times, where no amount of money will buy you another part. In other words, supply is exhausted. There are 100 machines worth of demand outstanding.

      In reality, we can get a small trickle of supply by pilfering lab machines, test benches, and raiding the reconditioning department - but this is a small fraction of the normal supply and comes at a high "price" logistically. For the sake of an economic discussion, it is still a shortage.

      The gasoline embargoes of the 70s were also a shortage. Price controls were in place, so gasoline demand was still high - but supply was obviously lower. There was a literal shortage, and no amount of money would fill the gap (without violating the price control laws). There were huge lines of cars with empty tanks - a very visual representation of unsatisfied demand.

      This pork "shortage" has no gap in supply and demand. If you want pork, you can still buy pork. The price is higher, and obviously this will effect the poor more than the rich - but there is no shortage. Demand will lower to exactly match supply. There will be no lines, no unsatisfied demand.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Not only that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The shortage would have gone away if the price controls were not in place - the shock could have actually altered behavior (pushing us toward higher density, mass transit, carpooling etc.). Instead we effectively increased demand by having long lines to refill half empty tanks (wasting gas on more trips to stations and waiting in line to fill up). We do the same stupid thing with anti-'gouging' laws that forbid raising the price of water/gas during hurricanes and other disasters when [economic] steps should be taken to ration critical supplies.

  26. Look the other way people. by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

    Next they'll tell us there is no real threat of a zombie apocalypse.

  27. Obligatory reference by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Laid-off guys can stop fretting about not being the one to "bring home the bacon", because nobody is

    Pharamacists can get dihydrocodeinone enol acetate, which is fairly close.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  28. Ethanol by tomhath · · Score: 1

    High pork belly prices are caused by limited supplies of corn, partly because of the drought in the US Corn Belt this summer and partly because using corn to make ethanol takes a lot of it out of the mouths of babes (baby pigs that is).

  29. it's PEOPLE! by JigJag · · Score: 1

    seems like we're one step closer to Soylent Green.

    --
    "The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
  30. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    For all intensive purposes, the point is mute.

  31. Re:Price increase == Shortage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, blame Nixon's actions on Carter. Even though Carter was the one who put a stop to the practice.

    Thats what you get for getting your "facts" from talk radio. You end up looking silly.

  32. Screw 'em all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what? Fuck them all.

    Between the government lying to us all the time for their own dogmatic reasons, the media lying to us for their own stupid reasons, foreign governments lying to us for their trade oriented reason, they can go sit on a pig and be pork fucked.

    I'm tired of this endless yammering. It used to be media and government yammering on a topic. Then much like the news, it became all opinon. Then it became commentary on opinion. I mean, I know in the US we don't build or make anything anymore, does that include facts or math? Is all this now just babbling about bacon, bacon commodities, Ouija board analysis going anywhere?

    The nice thing is, it doesn't matter. Nobody needs pork. Delicious as it is, who gives a fuck. If not eating it causes these parasites one millisecond of irritation it's worth never eating again.

    There is so much random chaotic shit going on that the freemarket exists. Since there's so much control, speculation, outright lies, they all cancel each other out. So the new idea is, if it costs too much, I'll stop eating it. I no longer give a fuck if it's due to drought, corn meal prices, or velociraptors. If it's cheap, I'll buy, if it costs to much, I won't.

    Seriously. Other than pig farmers, distributors, and other parasites, why is this news? Who cares if pork is going to be pricey for a year or two. Are there entire communities of the "poor" who need cameras stuck in their face because they can only process pork? Can they be led, pied piper style with a strip of bacon into a raging river?

  33. Dammit by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have gone long on corn bellys!

  34. Re:iOS Fart Apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But iOS is based on Mac OS X, which uses a trash can instead of a recycling bin!

  35. Not Hogwash by CommieLib · · Score: 1

    Actually bacon is taken from the side and rear of the pig. The hogwash is used to make Mountain Dew.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    1. Re:Not Hogwash by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The hogwash is used to make Mountain Dew."

      No, Mountain Dew is the sweat off Mountain Oysters.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  36. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Bah! You are simply uninformed brother as all that know the truth know the future is recycling and renewables! To avert this disaster we need to recycle all that FORTRAN and C code to to more number efficient formats with higher letter to number ratios such as Java and .NET, just as replacing all those piggish P4s with energy efficient low power chips saves energy so too can replacing number sucking code with more letter heavy code can save TONS of ones and zeroes a year and is better for the environment to boot!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  37. Pork Belly Cycle ? by SimplexBang · · Score: 1

    Just Saying ...

    --
    Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
  38. My Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I can say is, if the price goes up, the quality damn well better increase as well. When I buy a BLT I expect it with RED tomatoes, FRESH green lettuce, Melted Cheese, etc. etc.

    You get the picture?

    1. Re:My Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I get the picture: you have no idea what BLT stands for.

  39. Re:Price increase == Shortage. by couchslug · · Score: 2

    "Now, we have the opposite problem -- an administration who issues oil leases but no permission to actually drill and fights all efforts to build any additional oil refineries"

    Nice troll, but the US _exports_ gasoline of which it has a surplus.
    There is also no refinery capacity problem.

    The global market is willing to spend MONEY to buy US gasoline and diesel. They even pay to refine crude in _US_ refineries for export elsewhere.

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfexus1&f=m

    http://zfacts.com/node/426

    "U.S. oil and natural gas production in July was the highest since 1999, according to the Energy Department. That increase has allowed the U.S. to "meet 81 percent of its energy needs last year, the most since 1992." And, the U.S. took on the role of a net exporter of refined products for the first time since World War II.

    Countries such as Venezuela and Brazil, petro dynamos in South America, both increased imports of U.S. refined products from last year.

    Loder reported that gasoline has become more expensive because of rising world oil prices. The fact that U.S. refiners can turn a bigger profit by sending refined products out of the country should give us pause to think what would happen if we adopted policies to promote greater domestic crude production.

    As long as markets for refined oil products overseas continue to grow, it only makes sense for U.S. refiners to tap these profitable opportunities.

    "Drill Baby Drill!" won't necessarily lower gas prices as long as customers in China, India and other developing markets are willing to outbid U.S. motorists in the global gasoline price wars."

    Incidentally, building pipeline for Canada to export their tar sands oil through US refineries in Foreign Trade Zones isn't going to help US consumers either, because it "un-landlocks" oil which was going to US customers in the first place.

    http://247wallst.com/2012/03/07/valero-looks-forward-to-export-opportunities-vlo-trp-tso-mpc-hfc/

    "The Keystone XL pipeline, with its projected delivery of 800,000 barrels/day of heavy, sour crude from Canada, figures prominently in Valeroâ(TM)s plans to boost its profits. The higher volume of Canadian crude will widen the differential between Brent and other imported heavy, sour crudes by pushing prices down on imports.

    For US drivers, this scenario does not mean that gasoline will be cheaper. It does mean that Valero will be able to capture bigger profits even as US demand for gasoline falls. The only thing that will push down pump prices is for Brent crude to fall significantly with respect to WTI. That is not part of either TransCanadaâ(TM)s or Valeroâ(TM)s plan."

    Sorry to derail another anti-Obama attack (I don't like Omney OR Robama!) but the White House does not run the oil industry!

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  40. But there IS already a shortage of bacon! by Ear+Phantom · · Score: 1

    ...in my mouth, of course...

  41. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

    Arrrrgggghhhh, must resist correcting so many deliberate errors.

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  42. Cancel bacon order? by glittermage · · Score: 1

    Do I need to cancel my 400 lb bacon order from McGonigles?

  43. Re:As a Software Developer I Too Have Very Scary N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you want to replace the slow processors with fast ones, and replace the fast languages with slow ones. Sigh.