Who cares if grain prices move lower?

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewConsForum5.cfm?REF=39

the lowest grain prices in Canadian history - farmers will receive about $2.50 per bushel for this year's corn crop.

Adjusted for inflation, that's the lowest price in the past 100 years. - half the price of the worst years of the Great Depression.

The family farmer has lost their lands to Monsanto more than anything - the biggest land transfer since the railways got their right-of-ways. Monsanto now owns more land than any other entity other than government.

Could this commodity price crisis just be another tactic in that great land grab? It would fit the bill, thats for sure - it is doing the jof of bankrupting family farmers.

In a bigger picture, it is one of very very few examples of PRICES GOING DOWN [adj for inflation, etc].

It seems a valid theory that prices would always go down unless there is interferance.
And that money would generally flow from the rich to the poor and over time it evens out, but the rich had a great time while it lasted, but there were no real 'class distinctions defined for all time' due to wealth inequity [thats a good thing] .

Of course, what rich person in their 'right' mind would let that happen? They have the media and the elected ones in their pockets, so why not use them... and they do, of course.

But here [link] is an example of commodity prices going DOWN. It happens, I guess, but it is likey, as usual, that the price drop is on purpose, a tactic for a bigger goal. {Our world is full of those situations right now eh? }

Keeping grain prices high would be difficult anyway, when there is so much output [supply] - producers are trying to rake in all they can and keep growing more each year. At some point we expected to see a drop in production - global warming with it's severe weather would reduce production; the suitable land is all plowed now and we have increasing sterile lands; we are consuming more with world population going up and up... but it has not made the supply reduce or the price go up.

The NFU has released a 16-point plan to significantly raise the prices of grains, livestock and other food products and to help end the farm income crisis. That blueprint is available on the NFU website (in the related sites below).

Whatever those methods are, the most effective way is to restric supply. Thats the surest way to get prices moving up again. Maybe they will ask government for handouts, like most developed nations are doing now. Agriculture is key to stability in so many ways.

Would resticting supply lead to starvation?

We have cheap grain prices, but people starving;
The signs for reduced supply are all there, but it keeps increasing and the prices keep dropping accordingly.

Maybe they are just holding starvation over our heads until it is usefull. They don't need us to riot and panic now, so they keep the food coming, but it is a potent weapon and we cannot let the wrong people have control over it.

Monsanto might be the wrong people...
And all this commodity price crisis might just be to facilitate monsanto's big land grab. [/quote]
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Could this commodity price crisis just be another tactic in that great land grab? It would fit the bill, thats for sure - it is doing the jof of bankrupting family farmers.

Yes. Look at how few family farms there are left in the US. Look how large the farms have had to become in Canada to just break even. With smaller farms, it took 1-2 years to recover from a bad year. Now with the larger farms it takes 5-10 years.

Would resticting supply lead to starvation?

No. The low prices we have now are what leads to starvation. Farmers in developing countries cannot compete, so they do not grow any extra crops. They have no spare supply as a result.

I don't know that supply needs to be restricted. Simply ending subsidies in the US and EU would increase the value of crops considerably.

The old subsidy regime in the US, pre-Reagan, paid farmers to leave land fallow. That allowed the land to recover without massive inputs of chemical fertilizer, keeping costs down, and kept the price that farmers got for their crops up.

When Reagan came to power, he changed the subsidies so that growers got paid for production. That led to a world-wide glut, some truly moronic farming practices, and extremely low prices. Since most small farmers did not (and still don't) qualify for subsidies under this regime, it actually forced American family farmers out of business and allowed huge corporations (Cargill and Monsanto are two) to buy up the land.

The corporations hire labour cheap (often the farmers who used to make a good living on that land) and keep prices down. The US government pays them to over-produce, which keeps world prices low.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
you've got the nail on the head here dude.

Africa's starvation problem is mostly about subsidies by the wealthy nations. The idea of fair trade and ending subsidies so all can compete was thawrted by the corporate farms who have so much influence in the USA govt.