Text 17427, 225 rader
Skriven 2008-06-07 10:08:40 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 17345 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Humo(u)r
================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Friday June 06 2008 at 13:52:

RB>> Here and further on you're assuming a tight market for chicken feed,
RB>> where relatively minor changes in demand can cause major swings in
RB>> the price.

MV> I merely stated that the price in Dollars goes up.

You can _claim_ anything, Michiel. It doesn't even have to be logical.

MV> The rest are your words.

No, the logical conclusion from what you write. It's not enough to claim
something, logical or not.

RB>> But don't kid yourself: the USA middle west can still produce more
RB>> grain and other agricultural products than the US can consume. Don't
RB>> you remember how the American farmers were always so interested in
RB>> exporting their surpluses to the USSR?

MV> Exactly! They are exporting! So they would be foolish not to raise
MV> their price if the prices on the world market go up.

And why should the world market prices go up? I can see that in the case of
petroleum, but _chicken feed_???

MV>>> No, but the US producers of chicken feed will _export_ to the Euro
MV>>> area, thereby reducing supply on the US market and driving the price
MV>>> up (in Dollars).

RB>> This is what I mean, and I'm nearly 100% convinced your assumption is
RB>> incorrect.

MV> It is not an assumption, I am merely applying the laws of supply and
MV> demand. Your logic is faulty.

And your basis for the assumption (it definitely IS one) is faulty. There is no
scarcity of chicken feed, nor is it a static resource, not even as "static" as
oil - for which new reserves are reported nearly every month. The latest
report, incidently, was from Brazil. Apparently a pretty large new field.

MV>>> Diseases happen everywhere. Even here in The Netherlands. H5N1 has
MV>>> done a lot of damage to the poultry industry all over the world, the
MV>>> US chickens will not be immune.

RB>> Since when has something like has happened twice in Hong Kong
RB>> occurred elsewhere? I'm not talking about local, controllable
RB>> outbreaks,

MV> Outbreaks are by definition uncontrolled.

That is no answer to my question.

RB>> the ones you're thinking of, but massive problems that affect an
RB>> entire country. The only parallel in the EU was the BSE outbreak in
RB>> England.

MV> And foot and mouth and pigs pest or whatever it is called.... In the
MV> past decade we had several of these incidents virtually bringing the
MV> meat industry to a halt here in The Netherlands..

You exaggerate. We've had local outbreaks in Germany too.

RB>> And incidently, people don't generally live with chickens in the same
RB>> house outside countries like China and Vietnam - where the major
RB>> outbreaks of poultry disease have occurred.

MV> True, people here do not live among their animals. That accounts for
MV> the relatively small number if human casualties. But do not think the
MV> industry was not affected.

Locally, yes. Nationally, industrywide, or even internationally, no.

RB>> Run out of Dollars?

MV> The individual trader, not the economy as a whole.

Which is precisely what I wrote, and does not apply as long as currencies are
convertible.

MV>>> What I know is so far no one from outside the Eurozone has been
MV>>> successful in penetrating the local market.

RB>> Maybe they haven't tried. Wait and see. Or the laws and conditions in
RB>> the EU are, or have been, too restrictive.

MV> Then the same restrictions will apply to the US chicken farmers. If
MV> they are lifted the others will profit too.

Getting pretty desperate in your arguments, aren't you ;-)

RB>> If I remember correctly, the EU only recently decided to allow
RB>> American chicken that has been disinfected into the EU.

MV> As I understand it, the decision has not been taken yet.

Then why are we discussing this as if it had? My understanding is different.
The EU has decided and only the local (member state) implementation remains.

RB>> so it's a good deal cheaper to ship the meat than the feed.

MV> That depends. Meat shipment needs a lot more care than chicken feed.
MV> For fresh meat, it has to be flown. Otherwise it must be frozen. Which
MV> adds to the expense and makes it less attractive for the consumer.
MV> People here seem to prefer fresh chicken over frozen.

Both are offered here. The frozen variety is generally cheaper, since it can be
shipped from the cheapest supplier. Fresh chicken is a local product.

RB>> And, as above, the EU laws and conditions may be too restrictive.

MV> Again: if that is so, all competitors from outside the US suffer
MV> equally.

Then why are you concentrating on the USA?

RB>> Remember genetically engineered grain? Anyway, neither you nor I have
RB>> any definite knowledge on this, so both of us are speculating.

MV> My observation that so far  no one from outside the EU has succeeded
MV> in penetrating the market is not a speculation.

Of course not... you as a recognized economic expert in the poultry area must
have a great deal of insider information that we peons never hear of <beg>...

RB>> Laws and conditions. Argentinian beef is cheaper. And Europeans like
RB>> leaner pork than in the States, where a lot is made into bacon.

MV> So why should not the same or similar mechanisms apply to US chicken?

Thy can and do, BUT not ONLY to chicken from the USA. What you continue to
overlook is that any change in the laws and conditions can shift the market
balance in favor of one source or another.

RB>> Price isn't everything. Like I say, laws and conditions also play a
RB>> major role. And of course differences in taste.

MV> Now you are contradicting yourself.

Not really. An attractive price is a draw, assuming approximately equal
conditions otherwise. Where is the contradiction there?

MV> I predicted it would not be a success. For a variety of reasons. The
MV> you said that when they were cheaper pewould buy then anyway, Now you
MV> say price isn't evetthing. Now what is it?

Both, of course. You have been assuming not only a higher price for US chicken
in the EU, but some kind of emotional "quality concern". I dispute both -
unless EU chicken farmers manage to lobby governments to impose "labelling"
laws to stigmatize foreign-produced chicken.

RB>> I already mentioned the case of California pistachios, which I think
RB>> are not very good, but are the only ones you can now get in Germany.

MV> So indeed, price is not everything. The Irianian nuts were ousted from
MV> the market. The same could happen to the US Chlorine chicken.

Your wording is revealing, and purely emotional, as was the sudden and
concerted propaganda against Iranian pistachios. Their replacement had nothing
to do with price and a lot to do with politics and ignorant hysteria.

RB>>>> Just look at Germany and ask yourself why it's cheaper to import
RB>>>> coal from the States than to use German coal.

MV>>> Because the German coal mines have almost been depleted?

RB>> No, because it's cheaper to buy strip-mined coal from the States even
RB>> when you include the shipping expense than to deep mine it in
RB>> Germany.

MV> Key word: "deep mine". Why deep"Because the mines are nearly depleted.

Your assumption, but not true. It's just a question of cost in this case.
Plenty of coal left, as the mining companies emphasize.

RB>> Or for that matter to use strip-mined lignite from Germany as a
RB>> substitute.

MV> You know very wel that strip mining is too land intensive to be viable
MV> any more in Western Europe.

You apparently aren't aware of the villages that have been eliminated, the
inhabitants resettled to allow lignite strip mining in Germany. Take a look in
the Internet to see the enormous rotary shovels they use to mine the lignite.

MV>>> Eh... didn't you say that what goes up must come down? <beg>

RB>> Are you backtracking, Michiel <beg>?

MV> No, I am just reminding you of your own theory that you now seem to
MV> contradict.

You're trying to change the subject, and I don't blame you, since you doubtless
see the corner you've painted yourself into.

RB>> Incidently, I expect to see a further drop in the Dollar vs.

MV> Actually the Dolar recovered a little bit in the last days.

Apparently you didn't read further than that first sentence. I described my
reasons for the expectation. And I mentioned that I expected a drop in the
short to medium term. That doesn't contradict my "what goes up, must come down"
(and vice-versa) statement. Day-to-day fluctuations aren't really significant.

MV> But like you, I expect that to be a temporay effect. The basic reaso
MV> for the dropping Dollar is that the US society as a whole is
MV> overspending. As long as that situation persists, the Dollar will keep
MV> sinking.

The reasons are various, but by no means as simple as you apparently think.

MV>>> Regarding the US "chlorine" chickens flooding the market here.. I
MV>>> will believe it when I see it.

RB>> You mean when you eat it ;-)

MV> As I already told you, I will not buy it anyway. If I eat it it will
MV> be because someone puts it on my plate without my knowledge.

Guten Appetit! ;-)))

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)