Superbowl LIII

[Flystripper]

Rubin and Ed.

I didn't know the history of the BK Andy Warhol film that turned into a commercial. Kinda cool.

https://adage.com/article/cmo-strate...owl-ad/316498/

[cowboy]

You know what I saw? An entire pub filled with city dwellers in the bluest city in a blue state drinking Bud Light, Coors Light, and Miller Lite. Sure, there were a few "connoisseurs" drinking IPAs or craft beers and micorbrews, but for the most part, these suburban folks were concerned with ingesting as much beer as possible while trying to minimize their calories and financial outlay. Here's what they were not concerned with: the well-being of Big Corn, farmers, or anyone employed through a derivative of those industries. But of the 20 people at my table, 3 of them drive hybrid cars, two drive electric cars, and probably about 70% of them have solar panels on their houses.

I don't have time for this, but I'll make it up somewhere. I can't leave this discussion without pointing out that, while it's cute that you think an anecdotal sample proves your point, all you proved is that you hang out with people who are more interested in virtue signaling than math. Perhaps you fit into that category as well, if you think that solar panel owning, hybrid car driving professionals drink more beer than the lower income, blue collar demographic whom you eschew associating with - until they show a willingness to pay you.

Of the eleven states that drink the most beer per capita, 8 of them are in those empty states you think are so unimportant. The other three are in New England, which is kind of a Mecca of craft brew. Marketers don't go after the love or hate groups, they go for the undecideds. Of the undecideds, the group who are at this point indifferent between Coors and Bud, I will almost guarantee that more care about taste and price than corn syrup and C02.

On top of all of that, calories are calories, and using corn syrup as a boogeyman to the paradoxical health-conscious beer drinker is just dumb. Oh, and there's no such thing as Big Corn.

That is great. The poor corn lobby.

Corn farmers can go to hell and take their crappy ethanol with them.

I'm certainly no fan of the ethanol mandate, but you're pinning the 'bad guy' tail on the wrong donkey. Ethanol was a political ploy, pushed through by politicians trying to capitalize (no pun intended) on the peak oil scare to help out voters in their districts. The corn lobby saw a demand, and thus price, increase coming, so they pushed for it. After an initial price increase from an immediate artificial demand, though, the farmers saw very little benefit.

Price seeks the cost of production, and with prices quadrupling in three years, technology and efficiency kicked into overdrive to the point that corn yields and ethanol feed byproducts now more than make up for the corn lost to the ethanol mandate. Now, prices are near where they were before the mandate, and lower on real terms, so farmers are back in the same boat, with many of them worse off because they bought land and equipment based on budgets for $4-$5 corn instead of the sub-$4 prices of the last two crops. The Omaha branch of Farm Credit, which covers IA, NE, SD, and WY, has more distressed loans than any time since the 80's. The only winners out of the whole deal were the implement dealers, absentee landlords, and consumers.

What do you want to bet that 90% of those corn farmers are against socialism and complain about handouts to illegal immigrants?

You know this, but there is a huge chasm between advocating beneficial regulation and being a socialist. Many capitalists support government intervention when it serves their purpose. Hypocrisy has never been constrained by economic ideology. You need look no farther than school districts and public hospitals to prove that. Many farmers will tell you that they would be better off if there had never been a subsidy. But once a subsidy is in place, the leveraged part of the capital structure based on the subsidized cash flows creates a huge deflationary effect when the subsidy is eliminated.

My bigger point of contention is the illegal immigrant comment. Farmers hire a lot of them, and most farmers would be happy to see more workers from south of the border. Based on experience, farmers like them not because they work for less money, but because they are hard workers, dependable, and loyal. I think painting them as racists, if that was your implication, is unfair and inaccurate.

On a personal note, two of our most beloved employees started as illegals. One got a Reagan green card, and one married a citizen. My position on immigration is clear, and I'm not an outlier among ag producers.

I don't have any skin in the ethanol game, but I've interacted with a lot of farmers in the Midwest. They are hard working, salt of the earth people who are largely just family farmers trying to make a living.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didn't know the history of the BK Andy Warhol film that turned into a commercial. Kinda cool.

https://adage.com/article/cmo-strate...owl-ad/316498/

That is very cool.

[Pelado]

I didn't know the history of the BK Andy Warhol film that turned into a commercial. Kinda cool.

https://adage.com/article/cmo-strate...owl-ad/316498/

Nor did I. Thanks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm certainly no fan of the ethanol mandate, but you're pinning the 'bad guy' tail on the wrong donkey. Ethanol was a political ploy, pushed through by politicians trying to capitalize (no pun intended) on the peak oil scare to help out voters in their districts. The corn lobby saw a demand, and thus price, increase coming, so they pushed for it. After an initial price increase from an immediate artificial demand, though, the farmers saw very little benefit.

So the farmer share no blame or responsibility for this because it was the politicians who did it in order to secure the farmers' vote?

Sorry, but that is a very weak argument.

Price seeks the cost of production, and with prices quadrupling in three years, technology and efficiency kicked into overdrive to the point that corn yields and ethanol feed byproducts now more than make up for the corn lost to the ethanol mandate. Now, prices are near where they were before the mandate, and lower on real terms, so farmers are back in the same boat, with many of them worse off because they bought land and equipment based on budgets for $4-$5 corn instead of the sub-$4 prices of the last two crops. The Omaha branch of Farm Credit, which covers IA, NE, SD, and WY, has more distressed loans than any time since the 80's. The only winners out of the whole deal were the implement dealers, absentee landlords, and consumers.

You know this, but there is a huge chasm between advocating beneficial regulation and being a socialist. Many capitalists support government intervention when it serves their purpose. Hypocrisy has never been constrained by economic ideology. You need look no farther than school districts and public hospitals to prove that. Many farmers will tell you that they would be better off if there had never been a subsidy. But once a subsidy is in place, the leveraged part of the capital structure based on the subsidized cash flows creates a huge deflationary effect when the subsidy is eliminated.

"advocating beneficial regulation". Ha. Clever play on words. How about "quintessential porkbarrel politics". You know - the stuff we mock the democrats for doing.

We all would be better off had there never been a subsidy.

My bigger point of contention is the illegal immigrant comment. Farmers hire a lot of them, and most farmers would be happy to see more workers from south of the border. Based on experience, farmers like them not because they work for less money, but because they are hard workers, dependable, and loyal. I think painting them as racists, if that was your implication, is unfair and inaccurate.

On a personal note, two of our most beloved employees started as illegals. One got a Reagan green card, and one married a citizen. My position on immigration is clear, and I'm not an outlier among ag producers.

I don't have any skin in the ethanol game, but I've interacted with a lot of farmers in the Midwest. They are hard working, salt of the earth people who are largely just family farmers trying to make a living.

Please don't try to use the race card here. I was referring to handouts. I interact with lots of farmers, thank you very much, and I know this is something they rant about.

I love people from the midwest too. That doesn't mean I can't gripe about a stupid government handout that should never have happened.

[Northwestcoug]

I didn't know the history of the BK Andy Warhol film that turned into a commercial. Kinda cool.

https://adage.com/article/cmo-strate...owl-ad/316498/

That was cool. Thanks.

[Donuthole]

I don't have time for this, but I'll make it up somewhere. I can't leave this discussion without pointing out that, while it's cute that you think an anecdotal sample proves your point, all you proved is that you hang out with people who are more interested in virtue signaling than math. Perhaps you fit into that category as well, if you think that solar panel owning, hybrid car driving professionals drink more beer than the lower income, blue collar demographic whom you eschew associating with - until they show a willingness to pay you.

Of the eleven states that drink the most beer per capita, 8 of them are in those empty states you think are so unimportant. The other three are in New England, which is kind of a Mecca of craft brew. Marketers don't go after the love or hate groups, they go for the undecideds. Of the undecideds, the group who are at this point indifferent between Coors and Bud, I will almost guarantee that more care about taste and price than corn syrup and C02.

On top of all of that, calories are calories, and using corn syrup as a boogeyman to the paradoxical health-conscious beer drinker is just dumb. Oh, and there's no such thing as Big Corn.

Yeah, go ahead and flush your per-capita stats down the toilet with your Bud Light. NGAF about per-capita beer consumption. By total volume, none of the top beer consuming states are flyover states. If the entire state of Wyoming stopped drinking beer, if would have less impact on the beer industry than if one half of one percent of beer drinkers in California stopped drinking beer. But go ahead and tell us about how much beer your buddies put down on a regular basis and explain how important they are to the budget beer market.

Also, nobody is here to debate the actual value of corn syrup vs. cane sugar, so you can burn that straw man. But if you think there aren't millions of beer drinkers who disagree with the premise that "calories are calories," then maybe it's you who needs to get out more. More and more, cheep beer drinkers are urban dwellers, and urban dwellers are the ones who are constantly exposed to fad diets and fad environmental movements, etc. These are the people who may see that Bud Light is made without corn syrup and say "yeah, let's get that instead." And if getting half of one percent of California beer drinkers to switch to Bud Light means losing the market in Wyoming, that's apparently a gamble Budweiser is willing to take.

Also, please keep taking pot shots at my profession, because your vitriol is amusing, if banal. But it's nothing every lawyer hasn't already heard a million times before.

[Northwestcoug]

My alcohol sherpa at work keeps a stash of Coors Light at home. He knows his beers, and I quickly became pretty snobbish under his tutelage. Yet he drinks Coors light at home because of the calories. And, it's just easy to drink. I've noticed more and more people in Oregon going for the lighter stuff. So there's another anecdote from a non-midwest state.

[Moliere]

I'm certainly no fan of the ethanol mandate, but you're pinning the 'bad guy' tail on the wrong donkey. Ethanol was a political ploy, pushed through by politicians trying to capitalize (no pun intended) on the peak oil scare to help out voters in their districts. The corn lobby saw a demand, and thus price, increase coming, so they pushed for it. After an initial price increase from an immediate artificial demand, though, the farmers saw very little benefit.

Price seeks the cost of production, and with prices quadrupling in three years, technology and efficiency kicked into overdrive to the point that corn yields and ethanol feed byproducts now more than make up for the corn lost to the ethanol mandate. Now, prices are near where they were before the mandate, and lower on real terms, so farmers are back in the same boat, with many of them worse off because they bought land and equipment based on budgets for $4-$5 corn instead of the sub-$4 prices of the last two crops. The Omaha branch of Farm Credit, which covers IA, NE, SD, and WY, has more distressed loans than any time since the 80's. The only winners out of the whole deal were the implement dealers, absentee landlords, and consumers.

I’m not against the ethanol mandate because of the politics or subsidies or farmers or whatever. I’m against it because it’s a competing product to what my company produces. Why make fake gasoline when you can have the real thing? I mean, gasoline is cheaper to produce so let’s just use it and save everyone’s engines and gas mileage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m not against the ethanol mandate because of the politics or subsidies or farmers or whatever. I’m against it because it’s a competing product to what my company produces. Why make fake gasoline when you can have the real thing? I mean, gasoline is cheaper to produce so let’s just use it and save everyone’s engines and gas mileage.

You don't care that taxpayers are financing your competitor's inferior product? Interesting.

[Moliere]

You don't care that taxpayers are financing your competitor's inferior product? Interesting.

Some people believe that taxpayers are also financing my company’s product

[Jeff Lebowski]

Some people believe that taxpayers are also financing my company’s product

Haha. Touche'.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Reviewing the thread, it's funny that only a small portion of the posts have anything to do with the game. Who cares about beer ingredients? Come on people, what was your favorite punt?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Reviewing the thread, it's funny that only a small portion of the posts have anything to do with the game. Who cares about beer ingredients? Come on people, what was your favorite punt?

I care deeply about beer ingredients.

[Commando]

I disagree that KVN is unlikable. No, he won't be stealing Steve Young's broadcasting gigs anytime soon, but he's always got a smile on his face and is pretty much a Pats legend, having been acquired out of the trash can and promptly winning the Superbowl 2 of the 3 years he's been there- with an admittedly dominant showing in this one.

[hostile]

I disagree that KVN is unlikable. No, he won't be stealing Steve Young's broadcasting gigs anytime soon, but he's always got a smile on his face and is pretty much a Pats legend, having been acquired out of the trash can and promptly winning the Superbowl 2 of the 3 years he's been there- with an admittedly dominant showing in this one.

He’s just a system LB

[myboynoah]

I enjoyed the game. I've come full circle on the Pats. KVN joining the team has helped, but you gotta respect excellence. Belichick and Brady get it done, and not necessarily because they have overwhelming talent. In fact, most people I heard said that the Rams were much more talented. The coin toss was a striking example. The Rams sent out big, muscled captains. The Pats had shorter, softer looking players; guys you'd see at the hardware store. I was thinking "Dang, the Rams are going to kill these guys."

Ha. Edelman was an appropriatet MVP.

[Northwestcoug]

I enjoyed the game. I've come full circle on the Pats. KVN joining the team has helped, but you gotta respect excellence. Belichick and Brady get it done, and not necessarily because they have overwhelming talent. In fact, most people I heard said that the Rams were much more talented. The coin toss was a striking example. The Rams sent out big, muscled captains. The Pats had shorter, softer looking players; guys you'd see at the hardware store. I was thinking "Dang, the Rams are going to kill these guys."

Ha. Edelman was an appropriatet MVP.

I welcome you with open arms, brother.

[cowboy]

So the farmer share no blame or responsibility for this because it was the politicians who did it in order to secure the farmers' vote?

Sorry, but that is a very weak argument.

First, you're right. Second, I'm not going to play the 'all or none' logic game you enjoy using to corner people (effectively, btw). Third, I'm not arguing that farmers share no blame or responsibility. Sure, they share blame, just like you and I share blame for accepting research dollars that should never be granted, people who lobby to raise teacher's wages when their kids' education is already subsidized, or seniors who vote based on benefits that they didn't pay for and the country can't afford.

"advocating beneficial regulation". Ha. Clever play on words. How about "quintessential porkbarrel politics". You know - the stuff we mock the democrats for doing.

We all would be better off had there never been a subsidy.

Again, I agree. While not in the same zipcode as the Big Dig and Bridge to Nowhere, it was a waste. At least it was an attempt to solve what, at the time, seemed like a very pressing problem. Except nobody bothered to do the math. But farmers are a small part of the ethanol lobby. This was about jobs and votes in Iowa and Ohio, where farmers are still a small voting block.

By "beneficial" I meant for that industry. Don't misunderstand me to be saying that this, or any, regulation in the last 20 years has been a net benefit.

Please don't try to use the race card here. I was referring to handouts. I interact with lots of farmers, thank you very much, and I know this is something they rant about.

I love people from the midwest too. That doesn't mean I can't gripe about a stupid government handout that should never have happened.

I'm not using the race card. You said illegals, so I misunderstood you to be saying farmers are anti-immigration. Some are, but I think the vast majority are not. I apologize if I misread you. As to the midwestern farmers, I wasn't saying you don't like them - I was only defending them in general and saying that I don't think they should be hated just because of ethanol (more directed to Moliere's comment.)

[COLOR=#800080]{blah, blah, blah}...Also, nobody is here to debate the actual value of corn syrup vs. cane sugar, ....that's apparently a gamble Budweiser is willing to take.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what Bud is implying. They obviously agree with you and took the gamble.

Getting back to a question JL asked, I think they spent a hell of pile of money researching and planning for this. I also think they made the wrong decision. We can argue numbers all day long, but since you seem bent on being ridiculous about it (Wyoming, a net corn user, and least populated state vs Cali? Really?) I'll just agree to disagree.

Also, please keep taking pot shots at my profession, because your vitriol is amusing, if banal. But it's nothing every lawyer hasn't already heard a million times before.

They weren't at your profession, they were at you. How can you be as bright as you are, and still not understand when someone directing an insult at you?

I made a light-hearted remark giving my opinion on Bud Light's campaign, and you chose to be a condescending prick. You made the rules, I just played the game.

[Donuthole]

They weren't at your profession, they were at you. How can you be as bright as you are, and still not understand when someone directing an insult at you?

I made a light-hearted remark giving my opinion on Bud Light's campaign, and you chose to be a condescending prick. You made the rules, I just played the game.

A self-awareness lesson from cowboy. That's rich. Is this the part where you teach me to cope with feeling picked on by running to one of the 25 other threads I've created about myself to fish for sympathy or compliments?

[Northwestcoug]

[smokymountainrain]

gulp

[cowboy]

A self-awareness lesson from cowboy. That's rich. Is this the part where you teach me to cope with feeling picked on by running to one of the 25 other threads I've created about myself to fish for sympathy or compliments?

Lol. This is your reaction when you finally figure out someone is making fun of you? Wow, I was wrong. All this time I thought you just ignored it like everyone ignores your gratuitous shots at them, but you just didn't get it. Huh. You better go back and read some threads, because you have a lot of ranting to do.

I usually ignore things I'm not interested in. Maybe you could stop looking for ways to make fun of people and try it some time.

[Northwestcoug]

Wrong and wrong. He's a great football player, who is very awkward and unlikeable when he speaks (mostly because he sounds like he has an IQ of about 65). He could be on a Bruschi track, but Bruschi played 13 years for the Pats. Forrest Van Noy has a long ways to go to reach Bruschi levels.

How can you not like this?

[jay santos]

Time for group hug. And is it OK if I continue to occasionally post fishing for compliments and sympathy?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Time for group hug. And is it OK if I continue to occasionally post fishing for compliments and sympathy?

Absolutely. I got your back, Jay.

[Pelado]

That was one heck of a defensive struggle.

The Super Bowl, I mean.

[old_gregg]

Time for group hug. And is it OK if I continue to occasionally post fishing for compliments and sympathy?

jay santos is the best poster on this brigham young chat board and it’s not even close

[Pelado]

jay santos is the best poster on this brigham young chat board and it’s not even close

Only after everyone ran off Mark Grace.

[falafel]

Only after everyone ran off Mark Grace.

Man, I was listening to his music suggestions as fast as I could, but I guess it just wasn't enough.