Who can market to Bogasari Flour Mills in Indonesia

[Vader]

chaff - you confuse the definition of logic. Saying black is white does not make it so.

[chaffmeister]

Evader:
Neither does repeating the same thing over and over again make it so.

You say white horse, I say black hat.



"When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic."
— John Kenneth Galbraith, North American economist, author and diplomat (b. 1908)

[parsley]

Vader, since you want to play crayola, is this statement black, or white or gray or perhaps ------ brown?

Gordon Machej is listed as the Chief Financial officer of a mining company, that also lists the owner of the largest flour mill in the world, Piet Yap, as the President.
Parsley

[wedino]

Vader, (Quote Vader: That's a blast from the past Wedino. Some people can change their opinions when they get more information. Others put their heads in the sand and ignore any facts that don't fit their opinions.

I read an intersting quote the other day. It went something like this. Extremely powerful and extremely stupid people have something in common. ......... This is very unfortunate if you happen to be one of the facts that needs changing.)

I'm an extremely stupid peasant from your district 8 & I await your answer to Parsley's question.

[Vader]

wedino, I fear that am unable to help you change any of the facts to suit your opinion.

In answer to parsleys question I guess I will pick grey, since I see no relevance to the question whatever.

Mr Machej and Mr Yap are free to belong to any business they see fit to participate in. They are also free to conduct business with the CWB as they see fit.

[wedino]

The facts you speak of Vader, are a figment of your imagination. I refer you to this thread - http://www.agri-ville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1171338972

Review located here:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agc6751/$FILE/sparks_benchmark_study.pdf

[Vader]

Grey's study was peer reviewed at the time it was done. Why did Sparks wait years to provide his comments.

One criticism of a peer reviewed piece of work does not invalidate it.

Again wedino, the facts will not change themselves to suit your opinion.

[chaffmeister]

The CWB commissioned Gray in 2000-01.

Gray's methodology was meant to determine the value of the CWB by estimating what farmers' prices would be without the CWB.

The results for 2000-01 indicated that the value added by the current single desk system in Western Canada was about $160 million.

The CWB reported "findings" using Gray's methodology only once - covering the time period of Sept 1, 2000 to Aug 31, 2001.

Never since. (Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've never seen another report and the only one to be found on the CWB website is for 2000-01.)

The Sparks analysis was issued in Jan 2003, which means the work was initiated in 2002 - the same year as the CWB reported on the 2000-01 crop year "benchmark". (Evader - not years later.)

Gray was also a contributing author of the recent U of S study that was meant to determine the value of the CWB by estimating what farmers' prices on barley would be without the CWB.

(Sound familiar?)

Same goal, different approach.

The CWB also commissioned the 1997 study "Performance Evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board" by Drs. D. Kraft, Hartley Furtan, and Ed Tyrchniewicz.

Same goal, yet another approach.

The value of single-desk selling for wheat has been estimated by the CWB to be between $146 million and $256 million annually, using the Gray methodology and the KFT study, respectively. (Statement made by the CWB in response to questions from Minister Strahl's Task Force.)

That's quite a range. Which one's right? They can't both be right. One's got to be wrong. Basically, they're both estimates - not calculations. In fact, they could both be wrong.

Gray's methodology document is no longer available on the CWB's website (it was way back when).

Evader - How ridiculous it is to defend a document on the grounds that it is "peer reviewed" without actually saying what the peers thought of the document. For all we know, the "peers" may have had serious problems with it. I understand that Sparks also had a number of people involved in their review of the methodology. And they all agreed on the Sparks conclusions.

They can't both be right. Tell me, Vader. Why doesn't the CWB report the benchmarking results annually? Why do you believe Gray and not Sparks? Who's more credible?

[charliep]

Looking for a definition of peer reviewed. For an agricultural economist, this would mean the report has been published in a professional journal (Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics or American Journal of Agricultural Economics) with all the rigor and discussion that accompanies it. Normally the same processes and modeling techniques would be used for other commodities to test the validity of the research concept.

If you mean industry reviewed, then that is different. The Sparks barley report involved seeking the opinion of industry and presenting it. It has been presented to industry (including all members in the supply chain) several times with no major criticism except from one source. It has been cited many times including the Schmitz, Schmitz and Gray study. If it wasn't worthwhile and brought forward valid points, I assume it wouldn't be used as a barley marketing performance measuring stick today.

[charliep]

Vader - Are you referring to the 1997 version or the 2005 one?

[charliep]

Reason for the above question is I went through the 2005 references and of the 5 pages referenced, only 8 of the articles were dated after 2000. Rest were mostly mid 1980s and 1990s. The price data used only goes to the 2002/03 crop year. Only other new material was the piece reviewing the Sparks barley study (from which it borrowed from heavily). Interesting the wording in the reference section citing this study uses the following wording:

Schmitz, Gray, Schmitz (2005)study prepared for the CWB. Winnipeg (page 97). Same wording as the Sparks study indicating both are paid for consulting studies.

I would argue (you may disagree) that the structure of the barley market has changed significantly over the past 10 and perhaps just as much in the past. Change in MOP, drought, increase in domestic malting capacity, increasing livestock numbers, increasing competition for acres from other crops, bio fuels, etc. In the new world, can you look at the barley market with the view as in the mid 1990s?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

I was talking to one of the economists who think the gagle of geese have been messing around for far too long... and are giving higher learning a bad name.

Frankly the majority of economists in North America won't get into a mud slinging exercise with these folks... it just brings the whole sceince into disrepute. Correct action IMHO...

[parsley]

charliep, Aren't studies a snapshot of that time?

U of S economists Gray and Fulton et al are only trying to make a living like everyone else on this thread, but if farmers are stupid enough to
not only swallow but re-order, the single-desk syrup they concoct, we deserve what we get.

Any elected farmer worth his ballot, will sit at the Board table and demand a study be done on what the farmer pockets.

U of S economists will crank out "The Board is an Onion" if requested.

NOTE:
Farmers will be treated like they allow themselves to be treated.


Parsley