Economic conservatives, many Republicans among them, often talk about letting the market determine which energy source is best, and the need for consumers and businesses to access low-cost energy sources.

Well, applying that standard then, it's time to end the $5 billion federal subsidy for U.S. corn farmers who produce ethanol.

Agricultural issue Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM) is sharply lower in today's trading after falling short of Wall Street's earnings expectations. The company confessed to a 98% slide in third-quarter net income, thanks to hefty investment losses and a weak pricing environment.

ADM reported a profit of $8 million, or 1 penny per share, compared to its year-ago results of $517 million, or 80 cents per share. Investment losses for the period totaled 36 cents per share. Revenue for the quarter tumbled 21% to $14.8 billion, impacted by strength in the U.S. dollar and softer commodity prices. As a result, gross margin contracted from 6.2% to 4.4%.

It goes without saying that you'd call this a selective market: select the wrong stock, and there's a 30-40% haircut up ahead; select the correct stock, and you're positioned for the recovery with modest downside exposure. And with the aforementioned in mind, Archer Daniels Midland Co. (NYSE: ADM) is worth a review.

The global recession decreased demand for ADM's products, and the company is likely to face challenging conditions for at least the next two quarters.

EWG (Environmental Working Group) found that the largest chunk of Federal subsidies for renewable energy has been for ethanol. The corn based ethanol industry received $3 billion in Federal tax credits in 2007, more than four times the $690 million in tax credits for all other forms of renewable energy including solar, wind and geothermal.

Some critics argue that Federal subsidies for corn based ethanol have not produced the results needed to solve our current energy crisis and dependency on foreign oil.

One important factor in ethanol production is water consumption. One state, Minnesota which keeps records on water consumption reports that on average it takes 4.5 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Not included in this report is the cost in water usage needed to irrigate the corn to produce the feedstock.

Enter the environmentalists who argue that ethanol production is polluting our nation's water, eroding our soil, plowing up precious habitat and worst of all most likely contributing to global warming. There is growing concern that ethanol will not solve our growing energy problem and it was previously intended.

Should we continue with our current subsidies for ethanol?

Daryll Ray, University of Tennessee professor and director of the college's Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, spoke to a group of Kansas farmers to present his views on world agriculture production.

Ray cautioned farmers not to look to agriculture as a continuous source of economic prosperity. He cited the current economic crisis and warned that future corn prices, instead of near $4.00 to $5.00 per bushel, may go in the opposite direction. He noted that Brazil and Ukraine are expanding their agricultural production. For years, farmers looked to China as a big export market. China, however, has been a net exporter of grain since 1996. China does import, but they export more than they import.

Secretary of Agriculture, Adrian Polansky, also spoke at the meeting and pointed out the benefits of ethanol production. He said that ethanol plants were employing upwards of 235 people in small towns in rural Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Do you expect food prices to decline this year?

This post was writtenby Minyanville contributor Ryan Krueger.

Looks like Verasun Energy Corp. (NYSE: VSE), a formerly popular ethanol stock and second largest producer, has won court permission to cancel contracts signed to purchase corn. It is now in bankruptcy. I'm also hearing about a lot of excess ethanol funded by your tax dollars being sold to other countries. That worked out well.

The mistaken policy and debates are endless, the trades are what I am chewing on instead. I think consumers of corn at lower prices are set up for some awfully tasty '09 comparisons for their bottom lines. Corn Products International, Inc. (NYSE: CPO), after Bunge Limited (NYSE: BG) backed away from its take-over, is a name I have re-entered from the long side after closing out my position just after the non-merger was announced and shares traded twice what they are now. They sweeten something you'll eat or drink in the next hour.

Longer term, however, I am even more interested in the ingredients, not the end products. But it's still early. I have been long gone from 2008 corn contracts for quite some time, but am starting to poke around out on the futures curve. On the same day this court ruling was announced abolishing artificial demand, quiet real demand emerged as Mexico was a big buyer of corn.

I'll take a few billion eaters over several million drivers any day.

The irony of it is that food prices have dropped from record highs in the summer to fairly reasonable levels, but that could put some farmers out of business. Welcome to the world of deflation.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "A slowdown in new farmland development could hinder efforts to ease the global food shortage. Earlier this year, those shortages triggered riots from Haiti to Egypt to Pakistan and raised fears of permanently higher prices for basic foodstuffs."

Everyone assumed that a recession would move food prices lower or at least keep them at current levels. Budgets that were strained by high commodities prices might gets some relief which they will need as employment and consumer prices fall.

The problems may be especially acute in the US where some farmers have been making a fortune off corn due to feed demand and ethanol. Many of those farmers decided to expand, take on more debt, and buy new equipment. The price of corn has dropped like a rock over the last five months. How are those farmers going to keep up with the debt service? In many cases, they won't.

Get ready to pay more for an ear of corns and a loaf of bread. Farm failures are sending food prices back up.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

Here's is my quick form strategy for investing during an Obama presidency:

Health care stocks should perform well under an Obama administration. It has been made clear that within the next four years our healthcare system shall be taking on a radical new form. There is certain to be a massive infusion of new money into the sector. I would hasten to clarify that pharmaceutical stocks might not be the angle that you want to play here. I would lean more towards hospitals and long-term care providers. Check out this analysis from Kiplinger, to get yourself started.

Next, I'd be looking at infrastructure plays. I'd focus on materials, procurement, and construction, as they relate to roads, tunnels and bridges. This play will be more dangerous in the near term, as these types of expenditures will be more dependent on governmental budgetary processes, rather than executive edict. Jim Cramer recently offered some input about infrastructure. You might want to check out his suggestions. Then, you can find information about building an infrastructure position at TheStreet.com. Additionally, here's a great list of infrastructure companies which has been provided by Seeking Alpha.

To me, perhaps the most important investment angle to play through the next administration will be alternative energy stocks. I expect that there will be a great deal of money moving in there. Ethanol is said to be a sure thing. I myself am not so positive about that. Oh, we can be sure that there will be plenty of ethanol to go around. However, I don't see much financial return in it at the investor's level. I lean towards solar plays, and to a lesser degree, I like wind power. You can get a good feel for alternative energy direction by reviewing The Pickens Plan. There is no shortage of companies to invest in if you're looking for alternative energy plays. You can easily start your stock picking hunt by checking out the companies which are included in the Wilderhill Clean Energy Index.

As always, stock portfolio success begins with good research. Hopefully, I've given you some quality leads to get started with. When all is said and done, history clearly shows that the markets flourish under administrations controlled by the democrats. Let's hope to God that this time around won't be the exception.

Despite the onset of the latest high energy price era, it goes without saying that the car will remain the main mode of transportation in the United States as the 21st century progresses.

First mass-produced on a national scale by Henry Ford, subsidized by the construction and expansion of the public interstate highway system after World War II, and immortalized by such films as George Lucas's American Graffiti (1973), the car and car culture is intrinsic to modern American life.

The car fuel alternatives

Cheap oil is not intrinsic, however, and that's a major reason why the nation is exploring car / vehicle fuel alternatives. Many options exist, each with strengths / weaknesses, and currently there's no clear winner.

Hence, in a very real sense, your say in the matter will play an important role in determining what fuel most Americans will use for car transportation in the decades ahead.

There's an upside and a downside regarding major auto companies and the quest to develop vehicles with increased fuel-efficiency.

The upside: Auto makers are positioning themselves to carve out niches in fuel-efficient technology and design, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday (subscription required).

The downside: Auto makers appear to be exhibiting a 'herd mentality' on the current propulsion technology -- hybrid engine cars with both a modest electric power source and a mainstay internal combustion engine.

An electric hybrid focus

Following up on its successful electric-gasoline Prius hybrid, Toyota (NYSE: TM) announced it will make hybrid engine systems available on all models by 2020, The Journal reported. Meanwhile, Honda said it would import new hybrid technology to the U.S. to compete with Toyota and Ford (NYSE: F) plans to double its hybrid lineup next year, and Chevrolet's (NYSE: GM) Volt hybrid that will go on sale in 2010.

Economist David H. Wang said investors and consumers should not be overly optimistic or pessimistic regarding the sector's concentration on electric-fuel hybrids.

The press is making a big deal about the extent to which oil and commodities prices dropped during July. The reporting is misleading.

According to the FT, "Commodities prices suffered their largest monthly drop in 28 years in July as crude prices nose-dived more than $20 from an all-time high of $147.27 a barrel." Prices on agricultural commodities fell sharply as well.

Oil at $125 is still disastrous for the global economy, and corn and wheat prices are still fairly near historic highs. In other words, the fact that these costs have come down is purely relative. Consumers and businesses cannot face the sort of inflation that even slightly lower prices create.

In terms of commodities' prices, it is much better to look forward than to look back. Oil production may have peaked -- that has not changed. Exports from large producing nations including Mexico and Indonesia have dropped sharply. Meanwhile, demand for oil may be off a bit, but developing nations, especially India and China, are not going to curtail their use of gas and diesel. Too much of their GDP depends on transporting goods for export.

The idea that agricultural product costs will drop much further is nonsense. Hundreds of thousand of farmers in Africa have been displaced by political turmoil. The U.S. and Canada can only produce so much. The competition between food and ethanol is not going away, and consequently, corn prices will stay high.

Near-record oil and commodities prices are here to stay. The underlying economics are simply too compelling for costs to come down much more.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the writing's on the wall, so position yourself accordingly.

If the ethanol mandate is scratched, what will that do to Potash (NYSE: POT) (Cramer's Take) and Mosaic (NYSE: MOS) (Cramer's Take) and Agrium (NYSE: AGU) (Cramer's Take)?

Here's the answer every hedge fund knows: It will not let you raise numbers in the out years.

Right now there is a tremendous struggle going on about near-term and far-term earnings growth and what we can expect to see. Everyone knows when Mosaic and Potash report next week that the numbers will be beaten and the estimates raised.

Everyone knows that the numbers will be far better than whatever drove Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take) up 80% in less than a fortnight, that doubled Wachovia (NYSE: WB) (Cramer's Take).

But so what? If you scrap the ethanol mandate or if people even think that it will be scrapped, you will see grains collapse just as quickly as oil collapsed when we found a level we didn't need it -- remember, we don't "need" ethanol, but it is mandated.

We had the internet bubble and the real estate bubble and now, there is the ethanol bubble. Recently, I ran some numbers on ethanol and to my amazement realized that it is – too use a catch phrase from the environmental world -- not sustainable. Turning food into fuel is just plain silly; and when oil prices come down the ethanol bubble could pop big.

I ran did a little research and found some numbers:

• 47% of the Mexician' diet is corn
• it takes 2.4 pounds of corn a day to feed a hungry person
• it takes 22 pounds of corn to make one gallon of ethanol
• there are 42 gallons of refined gas in one barrel of oil

Now, a little basic math can be very enlightening. To replace one barrel of oil, it takes 42 gallons of ethanol or (42x22)=924 pounds of corn. That is enough corn to feed one hungry person for (924/2.4) 385 days – a little more than one year.

A few weeks ago, amid concerns about Midwest flooding, corn futures exploded. For a brief period, in fact, they nudged over $8 a bushel for May 2009, a four-fold jump over their 2006 prices, and were expected to go higher.

On June 30, however, a report by the Department of Agriculture put things into perspective. While the Midwest floods destroyed roughly 9% of the corn crop, this loss should be largely offset by the fact that farmers planted more corn than expected. Inspired by the rising prices of the grain and the promise of ethanol, farmers cultivated more than a million extra acres, which means that the U.S.'s corn supply should remain relatively steady.

This should be a boon to the ethanol industry, which lost no time in pointing out that the forecasted harvest should be more than sufficient to supply its needs, while leaving a sufficient quantity for food use. Of course, just because we are once again able to make corn ethanol doesn't mean we should. However, it still remains to be seen whether policymakers will ignore this scare or accept it as an indicator of the dangers that we face when we put all our eggs in one basket -- or all our ears in one bushel!

Sometimes during a crisis the United States rushes toward a solution, only to find that the action was not only not a panacea, it was, in fact, ill-conceived and harmful.

The late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill alluded to this when he noted that, "In the end, America will do the right thing . . . after she's exhausted all other possibilities."

That may very well be the case with corn-based ethanol.

Initially heralded as a renewable fuel that reduces foreign oil imports, it now appears that a powerful coalition is building against corn-based ethanol -- a problematic energy source, in economist Glen Langan's interpretation.

A ' tax dollar not well spent'

The U.S. Government (which means you, the taxpayer) heavily subsidies ethanol from corn production via payments to farmers, Langan said. "The tax dollar is not well spent, either from an environmental standpoint or an energy policy standpoint," he said.