examinator, I am just interested in a world view where facts become subordinate to ideology. If you want to understand why things appear as they do, you need to understand the causes. GWB had a major impact on prices of both inputs and grains because a sizable part of the US corn crop was diverted to feeding ethanol plants. The flow on effects of this move were substantial. It may not have mattered so much if world grain stocks were not already tight as a result of reduced production among several major exporters.

The higher demand for glyphosate had nothing to do with restrictive practices. You will notice I said glyphosate and not Roundup? They are not synonymous – there are hundreds of other glyphosate brands out there. If additional demand for a product is created, the price will rise until supply increases. For glyphosate, increased supply will only come from a new manufacturing plant being built.

Monsanto in fact does not demand that growers only use their brands. They require a registered product be used – even in Australia. It is in fact illegal to use anything other than a registered product. Of course farmers also have choice to not grow the crop at all if they so desire.

As in you pet shop example, people didn’t have to buy from the supermarket, but they did because the advantages were there. If people don't want to buy from your pet shop, you need to question why should you be kept in business?

As for D'Escoto, which of the following in his background gives him expertise in agriculture and trade?

1) Catholic priest?
2) Foreign Minister in Nicaragua’s Sandinista Government?
3) President of the UN General Assembly?

I suggest none of the above. What else in his background entitles him to expertise in this area? Nothing that I can see. Are his comments accurate? No. Why then should he not be judged as ignorant in this area? I’m with Shadow Minister here.

You still have not told us what you think should replace supply and demand in the market place

Examinator

Thank you for your comment but what you offered is a lot of assumptions and rhetoric....facts old boy facts, and a link to a leftist blog does not qualify.

If you say that Foxy's quotes are proveable, I challenge you to provide one shred of evidence that Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill control 90% of the world's grain trade. Certainly not from Europe, Africa, or Asia, where they have little to no influence (I challenge you to show they have majority control here)

Likewise, the fact that their profits have increased is because they have a good product. Monsanto's 20% chunk of the US market does not mean that the other 1000s of suppliers do not exist to undercut them.

There is no contractual requirement to buy Roundup once you have bought the "Round up ready" seed, but to do otherwise would be simply moronic, and is no way hidden from the buyers.

The present head of the General assembly is qualified to pander to the third world but is hardly qualified to comment on the financial system. His "food democracy" is a recipe to break up the large producers down to subsistence size 3rd world farms, and thus cannot be taken seriously.

This is no more than another conspiracy theory. PS there was no second gunman behind the grassy knoll.

There are some rather staggering numbers that are being bandied about, such as 90% of the world's grain trade being controlled by just three companies. Just what does this mean? Is the estimated 2 242 million tonnes of worldwide production mainly controlled by these companies? Or is it the world trade (ie export/import) in cereals of 264 million tonnes (less than 12% of production) that is the issue?

I also notice the use of the word "control", when "supply" may be just as appropriate. What is there to fear by this? If, as H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann says, 60% of the worlds sgrain supply is "controlled" by hedge funds, what does this mean? That it is traded by these funds, or that at any time these funds may decide to stop supply of the grain to whomever they wish? Or that they artificially jack up the price of grain by hoarding it somewhere? Honestly, the idea of hoarding enough grain is absurd, it would have to be destroyed as there isn't enough storage to hold it indefinitely and harvests are continually replenishing the supply.

These are only just a few issues I am struggling to understand. I do not know what d’Escoto Brockmann or examinator or foxy is exactly trying to say. That companies rule our lives? Yeah, and?

Shadow minister,
It seems you misunderstand what I’m about. I have no Absolute (written in the stars) opinions my pantheon of omnipotence includes logic, and context. This means when I come across a rigid opinion I assume that that person must know something I don’t so I challenge. Simple nothing maniacal.
Ok let’s examine your arguments such as they are.

Agronomist says they just forbid other products …same diff.

As for the ‘left wing blog site’ dismissal. Again with the play the man not the ball (what is said). Naomi Klein is a little more than some brain dead conspiracy theorist. The web site members are farmers etc hardly those lesser lives you detest. I have said innumerable times Left/right diatribe is assumptive reasoning at its worst. To go the step further to say therefore it’s wrong isn’t an argument it’s “It is wrong because I say so.”

“…. break up large producers to the size of subsistence farms…” bogus red herring not true

You bag the President of the UN General Assembly on ad hominem grounds. His speech would have written for him by ‘Qualified boffins’ with the resources of the UN and dare I say a World perspective. Using your logic Howard (a run of the mill solicitor had no qualification in economics (treasurer) or running a public entity (let alone a country) all his facts in speeches were fed to him by PS and then spun.

Conspiracy theory? Give me a break! More ad hominem rhetoric.
There is no conspiracy do individual have less than level playing field strategies to maximize profit you bet. Are these strategies in the interests of people particularly the poor and vulnerable not by a long stretch.

I respect your right to your opinion I was merely trying to find out why. It would appear its based on ideological grounds….Thank you anyway.

Cheers
Examinator ant

Agronomist
I have no ‘Absolute’ opinions only facts, logic and context are omnipotent I reason that those with fixed opinion must know something I don’t. What? Simple nothing maniacal.

You sent me a pro industry site last time as your evidence. I spent some time reading then researching the facts. Some was interesting but most was bias spin.

In past discussions you said Monsanto became a LSC. Because of competition to Roundup from China. Now your implying that it was to lock in a market which?
What is the active ingredient difference? (New info).

You missed my point on the pet shops saga…. The issue was a real Example ONLY.
• The DIFFERENCE in the POWER not equalling Level Playing Field. ABUSE OF POWER.
• The supermarkets were contractually not to compete directly with stores in the centre any more than I could sell milk etc.
• By the way they were selling half strength treatments and sent their clients to me for instructions. Knowing that it would place me at a disadvantage. If I said no. Also when I pointed out to customers that our products were actually better value the S/ms simply dropped their prices below my buy price… once I left their prices on average went up by 60%... i.e. Predatory marketing.
• I would have had to sue Hershfied investments (they went under at that time) and the supermarkets (plural) bankrupting me to fund the legal fights.
I also said “that’s business” …laws/ ethics and small traders are merely annoying speed bumps to the powerful.

A contact of mine in the US wheat belt was complaining that he and his no GM mates can’t buy the ‘no name’ glyphos because all local retailers are contracted to Monsanto products. Introduce one competitive product and they won’t supply him with anything... Predatory marketing. Same as Asian example given previously.
I’m not opposed to supply and demand just the excesses and profiteering.

Bugsey

I think the 80% refers to seed grain. ADM is quoted as controlling 60% of grain in the US.

Regards
Examinator ant

I'm still confused, when you say 'controlled', what does that mean exactly?

So, are you saying that these agricultural giants engaging in predatory pricing? Or are you saying that they are engaging in price fixing of grain commodities worldwide? What is it you are saying exactly? That the companies are too big?

What is it we are supposed to fear here? And what is the evidence for that?