June 16

U.S. attacks Mexican Beef and Rice Protection at WTO

The Bush administration has asked the World Trade Organization to
strike down Mexico's protection beef and rice producers,

"We are working to ensure that Mexico doesn't use foreign
trade remedy laws as unfair barriers to U.S. products," said
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in a statement.

The Mexican government has previously determined that U.S. producers
have been selling their rice and beef cheaper to Mexico than they do
in the U.S., a practice called "dumping".

As a protection against US dumping, Mexico imposed anti-dumping
tariffs on U.S. beef in April 2000, and on U.S. white long grain rice
in June 2002.

Anti-dumping duties are permitted protection measures under WTO rules,
a fact USA does yet not deny.

However, the Bush administration has apparently now made its own
calculation of the damage caused by US dumping in Mexico and found it
to be smaller than claimed by Mexico. The U.S. claims to the WTO,
that the method Mexico used to reach its findings was flawed and the
imposed anti-dumping duties therefore violates WTO rules.

Under WTO rules, the U.S. and Mexico now have 60 days to attempt to
negotiate the matter between them before a dispute panel would be
formed -- iow, the Mexican government now has 60 days to cooperate
fully and unconditionally with the Bush administration to remove
the anti-dumping duties.

The combined US export market value for beef and rice was
about $0.9 billion in 2002.

Our beef market is about a close to a free market as it gets. Supply and
demand set the price the last movement intervention was an executive order
by Richard Nixon to stave off congress passing price controls when a
shortage sent beef sky high.

Beef has been cheep and if it is broken up into raising a calf to 540
pounds, raising a stocker to 850 and then putting it the feed lot and then
selling it to the packing plant the feed lot has been running in the red
for a couple of years but the over all process is making money. The cause of
the feed lot running it the red is the packer is buying feeders and putting
them in the feed lot and the profit or loss in the feed lot is meaningless
to the packer it is an expense.

The BSE problem in Canada will fix US beef prices by taking 1 million
feeders off the table and a half million pounds of fat beef for as long as
it takes to get their problem fixed up.

I don't think that BSE is a threat to Canada because they like the US they
never had the amplifying method that the UK had to keep it going and they
sure don't now.

The dumping problem comes up every time prices get low with all countries.

Gordon


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
June 16

U.S. attacks Mexican Beef and Rice Protection at WTO

The Bush administration has asked the World Trade Organization to
strike down Mexico's protection beef and rice producers,

"We are working to ensure that Mexico doesn't use foreign
trade remedy laws as unfair barriers to U.S. products," said
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in a statement.

The Mexican government has previously determined that U.S. producers
have been selling their rice and beef cheaper to Mexico than they do
in the U.S., a practice called "dumping".

As a protection against US dumping, Mexico imposed anti-dumping
tariffs on U.S. beef in April 2000, and on U.S. white long grain rice
in June 2002.

Anti-dumping duties are permitted protection measures under WTO rules,
a fact USA does yet not deny.

However, the Bush administration has apparently now made its own
calculation of the damage caused by US dumping in Mexico and found it
to be smaller than claimed by Mexico. The U.S. claims to the WTO,
that the method Mexico used to reach its findings was flawed and the
imposed anti-dumping duties therefore violates WTO rules.

Under WTO rules, the U.S. and Mexico now have 60 days to attempt to
negotiate the matter between them before a dispute panel would be
formed -- iow, the Mexican government now has 60 days to cooperate
fully and unconditionally with the Bush administration to remove
the anti-dumping duties.

The combined US export market value for beef and rice was
about $0.9 billion in 2002.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:53:38 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The dumping problem comes up every time prices get low with
all countries.

New Report Documents Dumping, Argues U.S. in Violation of Trade Rules

Five primary farm commodities are being dumped onto international
global markets by the United States in violation of World Trade
Organization (WTO) agriculture rules, according to a new report
by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The report, U.S. Dumping on World Agricultural Markets: Can Trade
Rules Help Farmers? looks at the cost of production of corn, soybeans,
cotton, wheat and rice, and compares the cost to the price at which
these commodities are sold on international markets. In all cases,
the commodities were sold below the cost of production a practice
known as export dumping.

..

Question: Is the U.S. dumping agriculture commodities onto the world
market?

Answer: Yes. This report analyzed costs for five U.S. grown
commodities using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
to compare the cost of production with farmgate and export price. In
2001, wheat was dumped at a level of 44 percent, soybeans at 29
percent, corn at 33 percent, cotton at 57 percent, and rice at 22
percent. The details, including cost of production and export prices,
for each commodity can be found beginning on page 20 of the report.

Full report at: (long URL, you may need to paste):
http://www.wtowatch.org/wtowatch/lib...uploadedfiles/
showfile.cfm?FileName=United_States_Dumping_on_Wor ld_Agricultural_Ma.pdf

Selling for world market price.

Gordon
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:53:38 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

The dumping problem comes up every time prices get low with
all countries.

New Report Documents Dumping, Argues U.S. in Violation of Trade Rules

Five primary farm commodities are being dumped onto international
global markets by the United States in violation of World Trade
Organization (WTO) agriculture rules, according to a new report
by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The report, U.S. Dumping on World Agricultural Markets: Can Trade
Rules Help Farmers? looks at the cost of production of corn, soybeans,
cotton, wheat and rice, and compares the cost to the price at which
these commodities are sold on international markets. In all cases,
the commodities were sold below the cost of production a practice
known as export dumping.

..

Question: Is the U.S. dumping agriculture commodities onto the world
market?

Answer: Yes. This report analyzed costs for five U.S. grown
commodities using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
to compare the cost of production with farmgate and export price. In
2001, wheat was dumped at a level of 44 percent, soybeans at 29
percent, corn at 33 percent, cotton at 57 percent, and rice at 22
percent. The details, including cost of production and export prices,
for each commodity can be found beginning on page 20 of the report.

Full report at: (long URL, you may need to paste):
http://www.wtowatch.org/wtowatch/lib...uploadedfiles/
showfile.cfm?FileName=United_States_Dumping_on_Wor ld_Agricultural_Ma.pdf

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:46:33 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Selling for world market price.

Bwahahahaha. You dumb,dumb American. Look up the definition
of dumping in Article Six of the GATT Treaty.


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .
Question: Is the U.S. dumping agriculture commodities onto the world
market?

Answer: Yes. This report analyzed costs for five U.S. grown
commodities using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
to compare the cost of production with farmgate and export price. In
2001, wheat was dumped at a level of 44 percent, soybeans at 29
percent, corn at 33 percent, cotton at 57 percent, and rice at 22
percent. The details, including cost of production and export prices,
for each commodity can be found beginning on page 20 of the report.

Full report at: (long URL, you may need to paste):
http://www.wtowatch.org/wtowatch/lib...uploadedfiles/
showfile.cfm?FileName=United_States_Dumping_on_Wor ld_Agricultural_Ma.pdf

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:46:33 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Selling for world market price.

the world market price for food is a very iffy concept anyway. Such a small
proportion of crop grown is traded across frontiers that it doesn't take
much to drive a market haywire

Jim Webster

Cotton it the commodity I follow and the price in Australia and the price in
Lubbock, Texas are with in pennies per pound of each other when you correct
for grade, freight and exchange rate. Wheat is much the same when you
compare apples to apples. Hard Red Winter wheat that tests 62#/ bushels and
14% protein will vary only by drayage and about 10% on local conditions.
That is true inside the US as well as outside it.

Most of our export subsides come in the form of loans to buy the stuff. A
sneaky way around the WTO rules.

First Torsten roasts us for supporting the price and then for not supporting
it enough. He can't have it both ways. The only time the goverment gets in
the price setting business of farm crops are when they fall to a certain
level the goverment takes the crops as collateral against a non recourse
loan. If the price goes up enough the farmer can buy the crop back and pay
storage on it or let the government take it to cover the loan.

For accounting it can be considered a sale or a loan. Historically
considering it a sale is the most likely thing to happen because the market
does not usually recover as fast as storage and interest eats it up.

Mad Cow Disease has sent our cattle markets up a good deal. I can imagine
what it is doing to Canada who dumps 1,000,000 head of feeders on us every
year and a half million tons of meat. We had a bay over supply of cattle but
that should be taken care of pretty quick with Canada cut off.

Gordon
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:46:33 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Selling for world market price.

the world market price for food is a very iffy concept anyway. Such a
small
proportion of crop grown is traded across frontiers that it doesn't take
much to drive a market haywire

Jim Webster

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 04:48:51 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

First Torsten roasts us for supporting the price and then for not supporting
it enough. He can't have it both ways.

Huh? I am not roasting anyone. I am just telling you that a new study
has found that renegade USA is dumping agricultural commodities on
the world market in gross violation of WTO rules. All the while USA is
attacking Mexico for enacting anti-dumping tariffs on imports, in
compliance with WTO rules. Why would you feel roasted by an expose of
American double standards?

----------------------------

"The recently released report by the Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy says the dumping violates World Trade Organization rules
and hurts developing countries and U.S. producers.

"The dumping of commodities on international markets hurts farmers all
over the world, including U.S. farmers, by driv-ing down the
marketplace price," said institute president Mark Ritchie.
"There are international trade rules to address this problem. They
must be enforced."

In its study, the institute looked at the full cost of production in
the U.S. for wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton and rice between 1990 and
2001. The calculation included handling and transportation costs.
It then compared those costs with the price at which the commodities
were sold in international markets.

In all cases, the commodities were sold for substantially less than
the cost of production, which is one definition of export dumping.
The institute described some of the results as "shocking."

For wheat, the dumping margin averaged 29 percent, ranging from a low
of 18 percent in 1996 to a high of 44 percent in 2001.

That means that in 2001, U.S. wheat was sold for 44 percent less than
it cost to produce it.

Here's how the calculation was carried out, using 2001 as an example:
• The farmer's production costs were $5.31 US a bushel.
• The addition of 82 cents per bu. for handling and transportation and
10 cents in government support costs resulted in a production cost of
$6.24 a bu.
• The export price was $3.50 a bu.
• The difference between the production cost and the export price of
$2.74 a bu. ($6.24 less $3.50) represents 44 percent of the cost of
production.

The average dumping margin for soybeans has been more variable, but
averaged around 25 percent in the last few years. For corn, it has
been around 30 percent in recent years, for cotton well over 40
percent and for rice in the range of 20 percent.

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government payments. I do
everything I know how to keep my and my farmers costs down. And I am working
on ways of pushing costs lower by increasing productivity and decreasing the
opportunity for loss. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production
for west Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

What am I supposed to do when the price below the cost of production keep it
and let storage eat it up. If I want to hold the crop it is far cheaper to
sell it across the scales and buy it back in the commodity market and not
pay storage and have the use of the money that would be tied up in the crop.

The US goverment does not sell farm crops except the ones that the take in
loans. All but Cotton usually end up in forgin aid. Individual farmers sell
to private brokers and dealers that sell all over the world. Getting an
export license is easier than getting a business license in the EU. In a few
case farmers them selves sell intentionally. I know one country elevator
that sell alfalfa seed internationally.

The US is not the EU or Mexico they don't hold the reigns of foreign trade
except on some items. Our taxes are almost entirely based on income and
property tax and very little on duties and such. Interfering with trade is
bad for business.

Gordon

Gordon

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 04:48:51 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

First Torsten roasts us for supporting the price and then for not
supporting
it enough. He can't have it both ways.

Huh? I am not roasting anyone. I am just telling you that a new study
has found that renegade USA is dumping agricultural commodities on
the world market in gross violation of WTO rules. All the while USA is
attacking Mexico for enacting anti-dumping tariffs on imports, in
compliance with WTO rules. Why would you feel roasted by an expose of
American double standards?

----------------------------

"The recently released report by the Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy says the dumping violates World Trade Organization rules
and hurts developing countries and U.S. producers.

"The dumping of commodities on international markets hurts farmers all
over the world, including U.S. farmers, by driv-ing down the
marketplace price," said institute president Mark Ritchie.
"There are international trade rules to address this problem. They
must be enforced."

In its study, the institute looked at the full cost of production in
the U.S. for wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton and rice between 1990 and
2001. The calculation included handling and transportation costs.
It then compared those costs with the price at which the commodities
were sold in international markets.

In all cases, the commodities were sold for substantially less than
the cost of production, which is one definition of export dumping.
The institute described some of the results as "shocking."

For wheat, the dumping margin averaged 29 percent, ranging from a low
of 18 percent in 1996 to a high of 44 percent in 2001.

That means that in 2001, U.S. wheat was sold for 44 percent less than
it cost to produce it.

Here's how the calculation was carried out, using 2001 as an example:
. The farmer's production costs were $5.31 US a bushel.
. The addition of 82 cents per bu. for handling and transportation and
10 cents in government support costs resulted in a production cost of
$6.24 a bu.
. The export price was $3.50 a bu.
. The difference between the production cost and the export price of
$2.74 a bu. ($6.24 less $3.50) represents 44 percent of the cost of
production.

The average dumping margin for soybeans has been more variable, but
averaged around 25 percent in the last few years. For corn, it has
been around 30 percent in recent years, for cotton well over 40
percent and for rice in the range of 20 percent.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government payments.
.. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production for west
Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

"Total [government] support to the [US] cotton sector in 2001/02 was
approximately $4.2 billion, equal to about $660 per planted hectare or
95 cents per kilogram of lint produced. "
(International Cotton Advisory Committee)

Using your $0.56 figure for the cost of production and the subsidy
$0.95 cents/kg, it would appear to be a profitable business to grow
cotton in USA and dump it on the world market for almost nothing.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

Interfering with trade is bad for business.

A murderous subsidy

By Shehryar Mazari

Oxfam International's recently published study Cultivating Poverty has
opened a can of worms. In the report, the much-respected aid
organization, which focuses on world poverty problems, charges that US
subsidies to big American cotton farming operations were wiping out
Third World cotton farmers and directly contribute to mass poverty in
some of the world s poorest countries.

And the US government's much-ballyhooed post-9/11 claims of helping
develop Third World economies have suddenly foundered amid accusations
that it has been actively pursuing poverty-inducing policies.

Given that in March 2002 only, US President George W. Bush publicly
acknowledged that poverty was a primary source of international
instability, and that the advance of development is a central
commitment of American foreign policy, Oxfam s latest report certainly
ought to cause a sea of red faces in Washington.

The U.S. is regarded as an inefficient and high-cost producer of
cotton. The estimated cost of production for a cotton farmer in the US
comes out to 73 cents per pound in comparison with Central Africa's 21
cents. The subsidies allow the American farmers to overproduce cotton
and dump their crop in the international market at increasingly
reduced prices much to the financial detriment of Third World
producers.

The report focuses on the devastating financial impact of the US
cotton subsidies on Third World cotton-dependent countries such as
Pakistan. In particular it highlights the plight of 10 or more million
cotton growers of poverty-stricken Central and West Africa.

The situation in countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso recognised as
two of the ten poorest nations in the world has become increasingly
bleak. According to an earlier 2002 World Bank and IMF joint study,
the number of people in extreme poverty in these countries could be
halved within six years if the subsidies given to the U.S. cotton
farmers were quickly removed.

It is worth recalling that by 1995 cotton prices had crossed the $1.10
mark. But in 1996, during the time of the Clinton administration, the
U.S. government enacted the Freedom to Farm bill which began a new and
massive cycle of agricultural subsidies. So began a sharp downward
spiral of cotton prices. According to the Oxfam study, once adjusted
for inflation, cotton prices today are lower than any time since the
Great Depression of the 1930s.

In the midst of this steep downturn in world cotton prices and in
defiance of the basic laws of supply and demand, the US has uniquely
persisted in expanding its production. The American cotton farmers
continue to increase their acreages and produce record bumper
harvests. In 2001 they produced 20.3 million metric tons, which was a
42 per cent increase over 1998.

Faced with a static local demand and armed with a subsidy-created
immunity to price changes, the American farmer has flooded the
international market with his cotton crop. At a time of slumping world
prices the volume of US cotton exports almost doubled from 946,000
metric tons in 1998 to 1.8 million tons in 2001.

Last year the US held a 30% share of international cotton exports -
despite growing only 20% of the world's cotton. It is an indisputable
reality that these subsidies allow the US cotton producers to dump
cotton on the world market at prices which bear no relation to the
actual costs of its production.

Not surprisingly then, the Oxfam report charged the US for being
responsible for the severe slump in world cotton prices. In July 2002
the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), using its World
Textile Demand Model, calculated that in 2001 the US cotton subsidies
reduced the price of international cotton by 26 per cent (which works
out to 11 cents per pound). For a large group of developing countries,
this price collapse has generated major losses, both in the value of
domestic production and in exports earnings.

While Oxfam calculations for the last season (2001-02) peg the cost of
these US cotton subsidies to Central and West Africa at $301 million,
other countries have come up with their own estimates. The Indian
government has calculated its national loss at US$ 1.3 billion. In
South America, the financially plagued Argentina estimates a loss of
more than US$ 1 billion, and the Brazilian Government claims losses of
US$ 640 million.

Closer to home, last season Pakistani farmers produced an estimated
10.6 million bales (or roughly 3.97 billion pounds) of cotton. Using a
conservative market valuation of 42 cents a pound, the total 2001/2002
cotton crop can be valued at US$ 1.67 billion. Adopting the ICAC
subsidy loss of an extra 11 cents places the value of the same crop at
US$ 2.1 billion.

This implies that last season the Pakistani cotton growers were
deprived of approximately US$ 340 million (or Rs. 20.4 billion) as a
result of the US subsidies. This figure, however, does not include the
direct loss to the national economy through reduced earnings on the
export of cotton, yarn and value-added textiles, as well as reduced
revenue from GST.

Compared to the tens of millions of impoverished cotton growers in the
Third World there are only 25,000 [US] cotton farmers. With an average
net worth of $800,000 these U.S. cotton growers received roughly $3.9
billion in subsidy payments last year. This, for producing a cotton
crop that was worth only US$ 3 billion at world market prices.

During the 2001/2002 season, every US acre of cotton farmland
attracted a subsidy of US$ 230. Notwithstanding the constant
Congressional references to protecting family farms the largest 10 %
of cotton farms received three-quarters of the total US cotton subsidy
payments.

Extraordinarily, in 2001, a mere ten US farms between them managed to
receive nearly US$ 17 million in cotton subsidies.

In a recent move, President Bush aggravated the situation further by
approving new legislation granting even greater subsidies to the U.S.
farmers. The new US$ 118 billion, six-year farm subsidy bill enacted
in May this year is seen by its many critics as nothing more than a
political bribe, well in time midterm elections in November.

The Farm bill was passed with overwhelming majority in both houses of
Congress, with US Congressmen keenly eyeing their electoral fortunes
in the coming elections and signed into law by a President, who
despite his zealous ideological sermons on the global benefits of free
trade, is desperately keen to regain his Republican party majority in
the Senate. After the enactment of the Farm bill a caustic editorial
in the prestigious New York Times commented, By inflating farm
subsidies even more, Congress and the Bush administration are
impoverishing and occasionally killing Africans whom we claim to be
trying to help .

It's not just Africans. In Pakistan, seven years of steeply sliding
cotton prices have further weakened an already impoverished rural
economy. Children of small Pakistani farmers are now often found to be
malnourished. Lack of money means inability to afford proper medical
care for children or for pregnant wives. Many die.

The heightened state of American self-centredness is perhaps best
illustrated by the example Kenneth Hood, a large cotton farmer from
Mississippi. Not only did Mr Hood receive $750,000 in subsidies for
growing cotton on his family farm in 2001, he was also the first man
to shake hands with President Bush at the White House, after the
President signed the new farm subsidy bill into law. When asked to
comment about the tragic plight of cotton growers in Africa, Mr Hood
replied, "Maybe the farmers in Africa should be the ones not raising
cotton".

Fortunately for Third World cotton farmers the shadow of World Trade
Organisation (WTO) hangs over this new blitz of US subsidies. Despite
the US Secretary of Agriculture s assertion that the new Farm bill
does not violate WTO s subsidy codes, Brazil has taken it to court.

The fact that last year the US government paid out more in cotton
subsidies than the total market value of its cotton crop underlines
the strength of its case.

By challenging these subsidies the Brazilian Government is raising
issues that go to the heart of inequalities in world agricultural
trade. It is a pity that the attitude of the Pakistan Government has
been historically supine when dealing with American and other Western
trade malpractices. Clearly it is about time Pakistan made an effort
to resist these poverty-inflating US policies by joining other
countries in opposing this blatant economic injustice.

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government payments.
.. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production for west
Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

"Total [government] support to the [US] cotton sector in 2001/02 was
approximately $4.2 billion, equal to about $660 per planted hectare or
95 cents per kilogram of lint produced. "
(International Cotton Advisory Committee)

Using your $0.56 figure for the cost of production and the subsidy
$0.95 cents/kg, it would appear to be a profitable business to grow
cotton in USA and dump it on the world market for almost nothing.

It is profitable for me or was until a storn took out every thing in
west Texas last week. The insurace will pay the note and milo or
poverty peas will pay 50 bucks an acer insted of the 300 cotton can
pay.

I run an more profitiatable operation by bein an early adopter and
taking advantage of tecnologhy before it becomes discounted in the
price.

I don't care what the average farmer does I care what I do and the
fellow that farms for me does. We sink or swim togeather on this deal
and we best look out for eahch others interest or some one esle will.
He is a good farmer and I do my best ro ge a good landlorad giving him
the best I can make work to farm with.

Many see it as a zero sum game and it is if you play it that way.
Investmenst and opertunties are what you mak of them. If you want to
farm organicly and depend on the doal for you lifing that's fine. I
try to make my crops pay thier way and maybe make a but and all the
dole and other govermnt goodie si mine to spend. I farmed a few year
when the goody wasm't there and trusting the goverment for you lifing
is like trusing a girly you met in a bar to take care of birth
control.

Godon

On 26 Jun 2003 00:16:42 -0700, (Gordon Couger)
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government payments.
.. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production for west
Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

"Total [government] support to the [US] cotton sector in 2001/02 was
approximately $4.2 billion, equal to about $660 per planted hectare or
95 cents per kilogram of lint produced. "
(International Cotton Advisory Committee)

Using your $0.56 figure for the cost of production and the subsidy
$0.95 cents/kg, it would appear to be a profitable business to grow
cotton in USA and dump it on the world market for almost nothing.

It is profitable for me or was until a storn took out every thing in
west Texas last week. The insurace will pay the note and milo or
poverty peas will pay 50 bucks an acer insted of the 300 cotton can
pay.

I run an more profitiatable operation by bein an early adopter and
taking advantage of tecnologhy before it becomes discounted in the
price.

I don't care what the average farmer does I care what I do and the
fellow that farms for me does. We sink or swim togeather on this deal
and we best look out for eahch others interest or some one esle will.
He is a good farmer and I do my best ro ge a good landlorad giving him
the best I can make work to farm with.

Many see it as a zero sum game and it is if you play it that way.
Investmenst and opertunties are what you mak of them. If you want to
farm organicly and depend on the doal for you lifing that's fine. I
try to make my crops pay thier way and maybe make a but and all the
dole and other govermnt goodie si mine to spend. I farmed a few year
when the goody wasm't there and trusting the goverment for you lifing
is like trusing a girly you met in a bar to take care of birth
control.

And now while you are talking everything but USAs illegal dumping of
commodities on the world market, in gross violation of WTO rules,
how's your hamster?

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jun 2003 00:16:42 -0700, (Gordon Couger)
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government payments.
.. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production for west
Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

"Total [government] support to the [US] cotton sector in 2001/02 was
approximately $4.2 billion, equal to about $660 per planted hectare or
95 cents per kilogram of lint produced. "
(International Cotton Advisory Committee)

Using your $0.56 figure for the cost of production and the subsidy
$0.95 cents/kg, it would appear to be a profitable business to grow
cotton in USA and dump it on the world market for almost nothing.

It is profitable for me or was until a storn took out every thing in
west Texas last week. The insurace will pay the note and milo or
poverty peas will pay 50 bucks an acer insted of the 300 cotton can
pay.

I run an more profitiatable operation by bein an early adopter and
taking advantage of tecnologhy before it becomes discounted in the
price.

I don't care what the average farmer does I care what I do and the
fellow that farms for me does. We sink or swim togeather on this deal
and we best look out for eahch others interest or some one esle will.
He is a good farmer and I do my best ro ge a good landlorad giving him
the best I can make work to farm with.

Many see it as a zero sum game and it is if you play it that way.
Investmenst and opertunties are what you mak of them. If you want to
farm organicly and depend on the doal for you lifing that's fine. I
try to make my crops pay thier way and maybe make a but and all the
dole and other govermnt goodie si mine to spend. I farmed a few year
when the goody wasm't there and trusting the goverment for you lifing
is like trusing a girly you met in a bar to take care of birth
control.

And now while you are talking everything but USAs illegal dumping of
commodities on the world market, in gross violation of WTO rules,
how's your hamster?

pity you couldn't cope with the situation that Gordon describes isn't it

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jun 2003 00:16:42 -0700, (Gordon Couger)
wrote:

Torsten Brinch wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:36:45 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:

I showed a profit on cotton every year before any government
payments.
.. Every one publishes $0.56 for the cost of production for west
Texas cotton and my figures are 20% below that.

"Total [government] support to the [US] cotton sector in 2001/02 was
approximately $4.2 billion, equal to about $660 per planted hectare
or
95 cents per kilogram of lint produced. "
(International Cotton Advisory Committee)

Using your $0.56 figure for the cost of production and the subsidy
$0.95 cents/kg, it would appear to be a profitable business to grow
cotton in USA and dump it on the world market for almost nothing.

It is profitable for me or was until a storn took out every thing in
west Texas last week. The insurace will pay the note and milo or
poverty peas will pay 50 bucks an acer insted of the 300 cotton can
pay.

I run an more profitiatable operation by bein an early adopter and
taking advantage of tecnologhy before it becomes discounted in the
price.

I don't care what the average farmer does I care what I do and the
fellow that farms for me does. We sink or swim togeather on this deal
and we best look out for eahch others interest or some one esle will.
He is a good farmer and I do my best ro ge a good landlorad giving him
the best I can make work to farm with.

Many see it as a zero sum game and it is if you play it that way.
Investmenst and opertunties are what you mak of them. If you want to
farm organicly and depend on the doal for you lifing that's fine. I
try to make my crops pay thier way and maybe make a but and all the
dole and other govermnt goodie si mine to spend. I farmed a few year
when the goody wasm't there and trusting the goverment for you lifing
is like trusing a girly you met in a bar to take care of birth
control.

And now while you are talking everything but USAs illegal dumping of
commodities on the world market, in gross violation of WTO rules,
how's your hamster?

pity you couldn't cope with the situation that Gordon describes isn't it

Jim Webster


Grin ;-}

James Curts