• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Definition of IRONY...!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Definition of IRONY...!

    WoW!!!

    "The U.S. Trade Representative's Office spotlighted that the [new WTO] agreement means the eventual end of Canadian dairy export subsidies"

    So the Liberals did this... and no one even squawked?

    "NEWS
    WTO Remains a Work in Progress
    Victory on Export Subsidies Reflects Glacial Pace and Death of Doha Talks

    Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor
    Tue Dec 22, 2015 03:53 PM CST
    OMAHA (DTN) -- While there was some praise about the actions taken in the World Trade Organization's ministerial conference announcements over the weekend in Nairobi, Kenya, the end result of the WTO talks is that the now-infamous Doha round talks have died after 14 years of fits and starts.


    The U.S. and others wanted transportation and market subsidies to end immediately, but they ended up with a five-year phase-out in developing countries. (DTN photo by Elaine Shein)
    To hang its hat on an item, trade officials touted that after 20 years of talks, the group was able to achieve an end to agricultural export subsidies sometime in the next two to six years. The WTO called the ag-export agreement, "the most significant outcome on agriculture" since the WTO came together in 1995.

    For U.S. farmers, phasing out export subsidies by some competitors should be considered a significant win, said Dave Salmonsen, senior director for congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation. Elimination of export subsidies has been at the top of the agenda in the Doha talks for several years. The U.S. doesn't use export subsidies, nor does the European Union for the most part. Dealing with exports will allow WTO negotiators to finally move on to other agricultural issues such as levels of domestic support and market access, where little ground has been gained since 2008.

    "It's very trade-distorting when a government buys a product at one level and then subsidizes it for export so it can be competitive," Salmonsen said. "That's really about the most trade-distorting thing you can do."

    The language in the agreement lays out the ground rules for developing countries to end export subsidies by 2018, though there are caveats that could allow some developing countries to continue with such subsidies through 2022. The agreement also limits the terms of financing for export credit, for instance. The U.S. already falls in line with where the WTO countries agreed to land in that regard.

    "What was agreed to there was in line with what we are trying to do in our farm bill in regards to payment terms -- 18 months for payments and in terms of fees," Salmonsen said.

    The U.S. Wheat Associates praised the terms reached on export subsidies as well. "While authorized subsidies are rarely used anymore, agreeing to eliminate them is no small matter," the wheat association stated. "For example, while the European Union, collectively the world's largest wheat producer, no longer uses export subsidies it still has standby authority to do so. Other countries are using unauthorized export subsidies and should be challenged to prevent continued violations of current disciplines. Certainly, eliminating export subsidy authority at once for developed countries and by the end of 2018 for developing countries is a major step forward for world wheat trade."

    The U.S. Trade Representative's Office...

    "... spotlighted that the agreement means the eventual end of Canadian dairy export subsidies and subsidies for Indian sugar exports."...


    The talks and tone of the WTO's final Nairobi Ministerial Declaration recognized that there was no consensus to continue sticking with the Doha development agenda after 14 years of talks. Major global powers, including the U.S., "believe new approaches are necessary to achieve meaningful outcomes in multilateral negotiations."

    U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman declared that global trade talks have now reached a turning point in the World Trade Organization's evolution. He also indicated that countries would not have to be shackled to the ground rules used under the Doha talks.

    "In the midst of feverish work this week on the Nairobi Package, members engaged in honest and focused conversations on the limitations of the Doha Development Agenda framework. While opinions remain divided among the WTO membership, it is clear that the road to a new era for the WTO began in Nairobi."

    Though competing export subsidies could go away, the U.S. Wheat Associates was among those who complained that the Nairobi talks ended up allowing processing and transportation subsidies for agricultural products to continue until the end of 2022. Some countries, notably India, help subsidize trucking to move products to market. It makes a product a lot easier to export if the government is going to cover the transportation costs. The U.S. and others wanted these transportation and market subsidies to end immediately, but they ended up with a five-year phase-out in developing countries. Under some circumstances, a country can continue paying such subsidies for as long as eight years.

    House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, highlighted the long phase-out time of transportation and marketing subsidies in a statement expressing frustration over the glacial pace of reforms.

    "We need to ensure that these kinds of export subsidies are no longer permitted to harm U.S. farmers and ranchers," Conaway said. "The agreement reached in Nairobi at least assigns a definitive date to ending these subsidies. But, the success of this aspect of the agreement will ultimately be measured by its rigorous and full enforcement."

    Conaway also complained that the WTO did not do anything to recognize problems created in the global cotton trade because of domestic policies in China and India.

    National Cotton Council Chairman Sledge Taylor noted there were further attempts in Nairobi to seek more concessions from the U.S. on cotton, but the U.S. resisted such attempts.

    "While the overall outcome of the Ministerial is generally positive, there continues to be unwarranted pressure and focus on U.S. cotton policy by some WTO members," Taylor stated. Taylor added, "Over the past decade, U.S. cotton farmers have experienced a decline in their safety net, while the surge in Asian polyester production has reshaped global fiber markets."

    Salmonsen pointed out there remain a lot of overlapping issues, though, as major agricultural exporters such Brazil and India continue receiving the designation as "developing" countries for agricultural despite being global export powers.

    "For some U.N. definitions they may still be developing, but they are just as good of competitors for agricultural international trade markets as we are," Salmonsen said.

    What's the real gain for U.S. farmers? "It's still a work in progress," Salmonsen said. "This is trying to end something that was sitting like a weight on WTO. This effort was really a push by the U.S. and others to take some of that weight off so they could be an effective negotiating body again related to these ag issues."

    Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

    Follow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

    (ES/AG)

    © Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved."

    #2
    Gee and the dredging of the Missisippi is not a transport subsidy or the support programs . Give me a break!

    Comment


      #3
      They can have their "free" dredge and their payments in the US. To operate under the thumb of the EPA is nothing I'd be willing to sell my soul for. Most of it ends up in land market. Canadian dollar is our subsidy and that's fine by me.

      Comment


        #4
        The Mississippi is generally available to all commerce... domestic, export, and interstate.

        Therefore it is NOT an Export Subsidy.

        Our Fertilizer is figured out using 'Subsidized' River freight to the Canadian Prairies... as it is generally available and cheaper than rail where available... of rail matches the river freight rates.

        Not Unlike our Hopper cars ...

        Comment


          #5
          tom what is the point of your spin?

          so if cdn. rail roads were subsidized and govt. run to the coast .
          under your logic because everyone got the benefit, it would not be an export
          subsidy?

          as for fertilizer most of the fert. we use is manufactured here. and any additional freight , is simply a bogus
          charge, a result of price collusion
          by the manufacturers .

          like always , the question is , who do you really work for Tom ?
          because it is never the rest of the
          prairie farmers.

          Comment


            #6
            Your logic is flawed , if exports move under subsidized transport, it is a subsidy for exports, period.

            Comment


              #7
              I am confused. As usual.

              Why does the fertilizer I purchase have rail freight, ocean freight, and river freight factored into it when it only sees a truck?

              And why does it have imaginary fx built in when it produced in canada with canadian natural gas in a plant originally built by taxpayers and given away by a broke government?

              I can ask the same about the fuel I buy.

              Saskferco ..... Yara.

              Federated. ....well to themselves but a shitload of public money (we all own the coop) .....Federated.

              Comment


                #8
                bucket. your not the one who is confused. the ones believing we have a true supply and demand system are the ones who are confused.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ok binthere.

                  Why do guys go out and buy thousands of tonnes of fertilizers knowing they are giving thousands away. And before the retailer orders they make sure his credit is good or the cheque clears because the farmer isn't in no hurry for the fertilizer anyway. Other than to tell his neighbors his bins are full.

                  Until he finds out he paid to much. Then back to the retailer for something to even it out or his business moves. Retailer caves because he has the wiggle room anyway.

                  Look farmers are financing the middleman industries. It's not the other way around

                  And when you look at the grain business farmers collectively are financing countries. There is zero risk for anyone off the farm on this country.

                  Wait til this fall and lentils drop to 20 cents for whatever imaginary excuse and those 40 cent contracts get delayed. It has happened before. The newbies will take a discount just to move them. And that has happened before as well.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Our domestic Western Canadian prices are derived from US Row Crop Fert. markets... which are imported based on New Orleans/Florida port prices from global foreign fert providers.

                    DTN Retail Fertilizer Trends
                    All Fertilizer Prices Lower Again

                    Russ Quinn DTN Staff Reporter
                    Bio | Email
                    Tue Dec 22, 2015 03:16 PM CST
                    OMAHA (DTN) -- National retail fertilizer prices continued to drift lower the third week of December 2015, according to dealers tracked by DTN. That's a move that could offer modest breaks for corn budgets in 2016.


                    Urea slipped through the important psychological $400-per-ton mark, its lowest level in more than five years. (DTN chart)
                    All eight of the major fertilizers edged lower compared to a month earlier, but none were down significantly. DAP had an average price of $532 per ton, MAP $544/ton, potash $410/ton, urea $392/ton, 10-34-0 $571/ton, anhydrous $612/ton, UAN28 $279/ton and UAN32 $331/ton.

                    Urea fell through the $400-per-ton level in recent weeks. This is the first time the fertilizer's price has been below this level since the first week of September 2010 when the price was at $392 per ton.

                    On a price per pound of nitrogen basis, the average urea price was at $0.43/lb.N, anhydrous $0.38/lb.N, UAN28 $0.50/lb.N and UAN32 $0.52/lb.N.

                    In a recent farmdoc Daily report from the University of Illinois titled "Current Fertilizer Prices and Projected 2016 Fertilizer Costs," author Gary Schnitkey examined where retail fertilizer prices are currently and where prices could be in 2016. As one might expect, fertilizer prices are lower than in recent years.

                    Schnitkey reports the average price of anhydrous ammonia in Illinois right now is $650 per ton, slightly higher than DTN's national survey. This 2015 December price is $78 per ton lower than the $728 per ton seen a year ago.

                    "The $650 price is the lowest price since 2008 when anhydrous ammonia was selling for $478 per ton," Schnitkey said.

                    The same general trend would be true for both DAP and potash as well, he wrote.

                    The December 2015 implied fertilizer price results in fertilizer costs of $133 per acre, using 215 pounds of anhydrous ammonia per acre. This cost is below the 2014 cost of $145 per acre. The December 2015 price is also the lowest cost in any year going back to December 2009 when the implied fertilizer cost was $109 per acre.

                    Implied fertilizer costs using December prices are not a perfect indicator of fertilizer costs the next year, Schnitkey points out. December is but one month out of the year while fertilizer is purchased in many months. Despite these differences, December prices are useful predictors of fertilizer costs in the following year, he said.

                    "Implied fertilizer costs in December 2015 are lower than in all years since 2009, suggesting that fertilizer costs in 2016 could be lower than in recent years," he wrote. "Current projections put corn fertilizer costs in 2016 about $10 per acre lower than in 2015. If fertilizer prices continue to decrease, this cost decrease could become larger."

                    The entire report can be found at http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/….

                    With retail fertilizer moving lower in recent months, only one fertilizer is now higher compared to a year earlier, according to DTN's survey. 10-34-0 is 1% higher from last year.

                    The remaining seven nutrients are now lower compared to retail prices from a year ago. DAP is now 6% lower, MAP is 8% less expensive and UAN32 is 9% lower. Both anhydrous and UAN28 are now 13% lower while both potash and urea are 15% less expensive than a year previous.

                    DTN collects roughly 1,700 retail fertilizer bids from 310 retailer locations weekly. Not all fertilizer prices change each week. Prices are subject to change at any time.

                    DTN Pro Grains subscribers can find current retail fertilizer price in the DTN Fertilizer Index on the Fertilizer page under Farm Business.

                    Retail fertilizer charts dating back to November 2008 are available in the DTN fertilizer segment. The charts included cost of N/lb., DAP, MAP, potash, urea, 10-34-0, anhydrous, UAN28 and UAN32.

                    DTN's average of retail fertilizer prices from a month earlier ($ per ton):

                    DRY
                    Date Range DAP MAP POTASH UREA
                    Dec 15-19 2014 565 592 483 461
                    Jan 12-16 2015 566 594 486 465
                    Feb 9-13 2015 569 597 488 473
                    Mar 9-13 2015 570 597 489 471
                    Apr 6-Apr 10 2015 570 598 491 461
                    May 4-8 2015 570 598 491 457
                    June 1-5 2015 570 598 491 461
                    June 29-July 3 2015 570 596 490 469
                    July 27-31 2015 569 594 487 469
                    Aug 24-28 2015 567 586 476 447
                    Sept 21-25 2015 562 575 454 428
                    Oct 19-23 2015 547 562 435 413
                    Nov 16-20 2015 545 559 424 403
                    Dec 14-18 2015 532 544 410 392
                    LIQUID
                    Date Range 10-34-0 ANHYD UAN28 UAN32
                    Dec 15-19 2014 572 705 322 362
                    Jan 12-16 2015 582 710 325 364
                    Feb 9-13 2015 589 707 330 370
                    Mar 9-13 2015 626 706 331 371
                    Apr 6-Apr 10 2015 648 709 333 370
                    May 4-8 2015 653 711 331 371
                    June 1-5 2015 650 710 331 371
                    June 29-July 3 2015 642 705 330 369
                    July 27-31 2015 636 689 324 354
                    Aug 24-28 2015 609 667 309 350
                    Sept 21-25 2015 589 646 297 343
                    Oct 19-23 2015 582 637 291 334
                    Nov 16-20 2015 579 629 287 332
                    Dec 14-18 2015 571 612 279 331
                    Russ Quinn can be reached at russ.quinn@dtn.com

                    (MZT/AG)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Figure out the freight from Minnisota and 1.39 exchange to CDN$... and you have a reasonable comparison to the vast majority of the global fertilizer market price.

                      We are but a drop of water in the global sea of the fert. market.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Where is competition when canadian fertilizer is sold for less in the US.

                        Ukraine is trying break the fertilizer monopoly to lower costs meanwhile Tom spews nonsense about a fx conversion in product that is made here in canada.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Bucket,

                          What percent of the global currency basket is $cdn?

                          "At one time, Canada's dollar was the 5th most held reserve currency in the world, accounting for approximately 2% of all global reserves, behind only the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen and the pound sterling.[3] Because of its continuous drop in value in recent years (down to under 72 cents to the U.S. dollar on 17 December 2015, for example),[4] the Canadian dollar is less popular with central banks than it was five years earlier, for example."

                          So Wiki won't even try to say now... [what percent CDN$ is] because QE has so unhinged the global money/currency markets... that we would be unlikely able to even determine the USD and Euro reserves that have been printed and held in reserves by the fed and ECU.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I've been trying to bring in a barge of 11-52-0. Delivered at $705/mt. Retails won't touch it because of they're tied to suppliers and all the farmers I've talked to filled up at $800 or more two months ago. We don't have competition because no one wants it from what I can tell.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I've been trying to bring in a barge of 11-52-0. Delivered at $705/mt. Retails won't touch it because of they're tied to suppliers and all the farmers I've talked to filled up at $800 or more two months ago. We don't have competition because no one wants it from what I can tell.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...