Viagra Increasing prices on Friday!

[SASKFARMER3]

That's what I am trying to get across its the Agriums that created this frenzy, boosted the Dealers Eggo then when the Crap hits the fence these guys take their ball and go home, shut down their plants and say to their own dealers sorry you bought at high prices have a great day.

[SASKFARMER3]

Only one thing Agrium is worried about and that is that you MR Farmer will not buy much before year end. Then if their isn't movement in the high priced stuff they will have to revert to shortages and scare tactics into March and April. Plant shut downs plant slow downs plant layoffs etc etc etc. They need sales for last and first quarter to be in line with expectations or their shares will tank. That is a worry to them.

[TOM4CWB]

SF3,

We can easily cut fertiliser... by 30 to 50%... and not skip a beat.

Brazil already did a 35% cut in the fert. used in crop just planted.... and it hardly dented production.

Agrium had better give their head a shake... and plant shutdowns... could well be needed... or they won't have a place to store it!

[SASKFARMER3]

Its a very simple process, We went from 100lbs gas to 60lbs.
When gas was .18 cents we used to put down 120lbs and guess what the yields last year were better than before (yes the genetics are better.
Most farmers over apply their fert, always have.
Good weed control, timing and a little luck make a crop.
Also we went to a split application, We use a blend with the seed then in mid June when the plant hits the gas around the time its heading and wola its on its way.
Listened to Weir in yorkton on cutting back its nice to see he now works for Viterra again and was telling us not to cut back, just don't seed as much ground.

[classicalliberal]

Sask farmer just like how selling $16 canola when you can produce it for $8 isn't a huge ripoff to all those at the other end. That is the exact same logic only shifted around to your perspective. Am I right in thinking that you believe that it is bad if everyone else makes a huge profit, which may not be true, that it is bad but it is ok for you to get a 40 to 50% return on investment on canola as an example?

[classicalliberal]

That is why variable rate fertilization is such a great thing because it cuts down on the over fertilization. What the fertilizer companies are doing is cutting production, one reason is that they have too much unmoved product from the fall that they would typically move but late harvest in the US and Canada and collapsing grain prices put that to a standstill. They are doing what anyone would do when the prices are too low is cut production. That is what we do when the prices are too low, we don't grow that particular crop which is the same as cutting production on their end. The difference is that our cycle is a year and their cycle is a lot less. It would be nice to have two crops per year like the South Americans have.

[SASKFARMER3]

Classic liberal, After years of liberal govt and not getting any help in western Canada most farmers are up to their eye balls in Debt, Again Most are in Debt up to their ying yang. We had frost flood frost and then by the liberal govt were told to go head on with the Americans and Euro. Again No help from your guys, Now one year, no actually one day since 1979 do we massively profit and then the pigs come out in full force.
No hell its all about making a very decent living, But again when it comes around only once in 30 years and lasts only one day that's not real world.
Speculators gave us the one day then the free fall began, these guys saw a opportunity and took full advantage good on them but they screwed their own on the way up, if the grain markets would have stayed up or hovered the price increase is justified, but when their prices plummeted on world stage what did they do, Leave their own to deal with the mess, and a few will be gone because of this.
So all to the free market it works but when their is only two or three of these guys and its not called a monopoly it guess its justified.

[classicalliberal]

Saskfarmer3, my blog name actually pokes fun at the choice of names that parties like the liberal party chooses or what the media calls as liberal policies such as trade protectionism, tariffs, high taxes, redistribution of wealth, transfer payments, welfare, socialized health care and grain marketing, etc, certainly not economic liberalism. They are however, relatively socially liberal. The definition of Classical liberalism is the following:
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], market liberalism[3] or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4] as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and others. I disagree with the gold standard because as a student of economics feel that the gold standard has more limitations than does the current system of free exchange rates and monetary policy although I believe that both have flaws.

[classicalliberal]

Everyone preaches free markets until thier own industry suddenly has an increase in competition or competition for overseas such as the US steel industry in the 1970s complaining about foreign subsidization, or the unions in the auto industry complaining about a level playing field when they have done nothing but screw the auto industry and the consumers for many years. Thank god for free trade, or we would be driving chavettes all these years. No business enterpriser wants extra competition and will fight to keep competition away if they can get away with it. They will admit however, that it is better for everyone involved except themselves, so I have always felt that one of the main roles for government is to protect competition, like...however much I hate Jean Chretieniste, he didn't let the banks merge, or shouldn't have let Sask Pool and Viterra merge, fertilizer companies, etc.

[cottonpicken]

Classic,as a student of economics you dont have a clue.

The gold standard must exist.

Capitalism can not flourish without a sound medium of exchange.

As soon as the public relizes it can raid the public cofferes it starts voting for any schmuck that will give it the most.

Read a little history,america was the greatest country ever because of the gold standard.

[vvalk]

Amazing SF3 that you talk about the avg to below avg canola crop all year yet you got $14 to $16 for ALL your huge canola crop. Since prices collapse before you harvested I wonder how this is possible. You must of forward priced way more then you thought you were going to grow.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You hate the CWB yet also the open market. Your rants on profit by the big bad corporations sounds like Jack Layton talk. get over it already. Like classic said $16 canola is no different then $1000 nitrogen

[classicalliberal]

The world now seems to use the US dollar or dollarization or fiat money which, unless the rest of the world increases its money supply like the US is, will become devalued significantly at some point which makes me think that it would be wise to sell USD and buy CAD.

This is something that I have recently taken in school and there are several reasons for the adoption of the fiat currency as opposed to a commodity standard or gold standard. The gold standard provides some "self-regulating" (which is what the markets tend to do if competitive)and a country can only print enough money as their gold supply permits as well as reducing governments abilities to run deficits and debt. Productive and exporting nations would be rewarded (like Canada but not US)by increasing their gold supply and therefore the money supply can be increased and interest rates will go down to promote business and economic growth and penalize those whose supply shrinks.
There is however, not enough gold in the world relative to the value of the currencies currently in circulation in the US, let alone the world, it would artificilly push the prices up for gold significantly. It could also be inflationary if the mining of gold doesn't keep up with the growth rate of the economy. It also fixes the money supply which limits economic growth which would bring some truth to the socialist's fixed piece of the pie theory when some get rich and others get poorer rather than wealth creation and the standard of living increases that we have seen since the depression. Also, economic growth would depend on the country's supply of gold in which some countries would be better off than others. Also, if the US was under a gold standard now with it's weakening economy, gold could come under attach by speculators who flee to gold which will artificially increase interest rates when interest rates should be softened.

I understand from the libertarian's point of view, such as Allan Greenspan at the time before central bankers really practiced monetary policy, "under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth… The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit… In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation" which is essentially what the current US and new, more socialist, welfare state oriented Obama government will do is monetize the current bad debt. I really don't know where to stand in the issue because I see the advantages of fiat currency standards and free and floating exchange rates but I don't trust the government to manage monetarism and fiscal policy. Actually, under perfect capital mobility with flexible exchange rates, fiscal policy in order to increase wealth and income is essentially crowded out completely or in cases of relative capital mobility which is what we have, it is partially crowded out by increases in imports and currency appreciation. I'm sorry if I sound like a huge nerd, but I have such interest in these subjects. I also very much enjoy the conversations on this blog.