My comments in bold:
chuckChuck: KFT and Richard Gray would undoubtledy disagree with some or all your points. Who's right? In my opinion, KFT and Gray provided a more objective point of view. Many of your points are from a more political point of view which is fine. But what we need is objective analysis and facts with less politics.
<b>Politics? Are you serious? Where in my comments do you find politics?
I show KFT didn’t understand basis – and you say it’s political.
I show KFT didn’t understand grain handling costs – and you say it’s political.
I show Gray didn’t include storage as a CWB cost – and you say it’s political.
I show Gray made adjustments because the CWB told him to - and you say it’s political.
Amazing.
KFT and Gray were paid and “directed” by the CWB; I’m completely independent (not paid or directed by anyone for this) – and you say they provide a more objective point of view. With all due respect, do you even know the meaning of the word?
It’s clear you just don’t like what I’m saying but to say its political and less objective is just nonsensical. Since you don’t trust me, do yourself a favour and ask anyone who has actually worked in the grain handling / trading business (this does not include academics or staff at the CWB).
By the way - I worked with Daryl Kraft on a number of files for the Competition Bureau (Agricore mergers, etc). He agreed with me on the KFT study.
And I’m certain that if you asked Richard Gray, he would agree with my comments. After all, everything I said is in his report.
You think we need objective analysis and facts; please share a description of the analysis you’d like to see and what facts are relevant.</b>
By the way, you never answered my question about the value of the larger domestic usage in the US vs Canada? What impact does this have on US prices for US producers as they are not as dependent on export markets as we are which probably leaves us with a basket of market prices which are lower overall.
<b>You’re right, I didn’t. It makes no sense to go onto another topic while we’re not getting anywhere on this one.</b>
I also find it hard to believe that a wide open market into the US wouldn't have a negative impact on US prices in the absence of CWB disciplined marketing approach.
<b>”Hard to believe” falls in the category of unsubstantiated rhetoric; it does not even come close to satisfying your criteria of “objective analysis and facts with less politics”. Sorry – I have no interest in discussing with someone who’s greatest retorts are “Oh yeah?” and “Is not!” Give us some of that objective analysis you’re looking for. Please.</b>
Didn't Premier Wall put up quite a fuss when BHP said they would sell potash outside of Canpotex? Originally BHP was intereted in maximizing volume and gross sales not maximizing price with more limited strategic sales in Canpotex.
<b>More diversion. Wall and Canpotex has nothing to do with CWB’s failure to get premiums.
Remember this number:
<font color="red">Minus $3.49/tonne</font>
The CWB’s own numbers. No matter how much you argue it, it’s about as objective as you can get and there’s nothing political about it. </b>
chuckChuck: KFT and Richard Gray would undoubtledy disagree with some or all your points. Who's right? In my opinion, KFT and Gray provided a more objective point of view. Many of your points are from a more political point of view which is fine. But what we need is objective analysis and facts with less politics.
<b>Politics? Are you serious? Where in my comments do you find politics?
I show KFT didn’t understand basis – and you say it’s political.
I show KFT didn’t understand grain handling costs – and you say it’s political.
I show Gray didn’t include storage as a CWB cost – and you say it’s political.
I show Gray made adjustments because the CWB told him to - and you say it’s political.
Amazing.
KFT and Gray were paid and “directed” by the CWB; I’m completely independent (not paid or directed by anyone for this) – and you say they provide a more objective point of view. With all due respect, do you even know the meaning of the word?
It’s clear you just don’t like what I’m saying but to say its political and less objective is just nonsensical. Since you don’t trust me, do yourself a favour and ask anyone who has actually worked in the grain handling / trading business (this does not include academics or staff at the CWB).
By the way - I worked with Daryl Kraft on a number of files for the Competition Bureau (Agricore mergers, etc). He agreed with me on the KFT study.
And I’m certain that if you asked Richard Gray, he would agree with my comments. After all, everything I said is in his report.
You think we need objective analysis and facts; please share a description of the analysis you’d like to see and what facts are relevant.</b>
By the way, you never answered my question about the value of the larger domestic usage in the US vs Canada? What impact does this have on US prices for US producers as they are not as dependent on export markets as we are which probably leaves us with a basket of market prices which are lower overall.
<b>You’re right, I didn’t. It makes no sense to go onto another topic while we’re not getting anywhere on this one.</b>
I also find it hard to believe that a wide open market into the US wouldn't have a negative impact on US prices in the absence of CWB disciplined marketing approach.
<b>”Hard to believe” falls in the category of unsubstantiated rhetoric; it does not even come close to satisfying your criteria of “objective analysis and facts with less politics”. Sorry – I have no interest in discussing with someone who’s greatest retorts are “Oh yeah?” and “Is not!” Give us some of that objective analysis you’re looking for. Please.</b>
Didn't Premier Wall put up quite a fuss when BHP said they would sell potash outside of Canpotex? Originally BHP was intereted in maximizing volume and gross sales not maximizing price with more limited strategic sales in Canpotex.
<b>More diversion. Wall and Canpotex has nothing to do with CWB’s failure to get premiums.
Remember this number:
<font color="red">Minus $3.49/tonne</font>
The CWB’s own numbers. No matter how much you argue it, it’s about as objective as you can get and there’s nothing political about it. </b>
Comment