Marketeye, I didn't mean to assume you where making a statement on Beck. Your point is valid, because in this sound bite world we live in, people believe what they hear and read. It is so hard to get the facts. And what some 'preach' does affect the markets. Look what the hype on swine flu cost the pork industry.
Hey, now! You're hurting my feelings! Ha! I hope you're right -- Let's cheer on the A-Team, now that he's back, to bring us some higher prices! What do you say, Marketeye?!
I agree. Get them out of crop insurance. Originally, the subsidies existed because the gov't felt it was cheaper to subsidize crop insurance in order to get more people in so that disaster payments wouldn't have to be made. Unfortunately, this isn't exactly how it worked. They did get a lot more people in the program, but they are still paying disaster payments.
Thanks Jeff for covering last week. Let me guess, you're the one that called Beck and said one ear of corn could eventually cost $11? You betcha. As I walk the floor, I'm told to not believe the Chinese, watch South America's weather, remain bullish, pay attention to Ireland's gov't bottomline not their banks. We know their banks are broke, but the other shoe to drop is their financial status of their government. Oh, and don't stuff the U.S. carryout numbers away in that bottom file drawer. Leave them on your desk where you can see them and look at them numerous times daily.
We make judgements every day in our marketing based on reliable information (and must confirm), so making a judgement on Beck is relatively easy. He is an idiot based on an inability to know the facts before misleading others who can't be bothered to check the facts, if what he said about corn is true. And the character of a network that wants a commentator who behaves this way speaks for itself. Has nothing to do with political outlook to make that judgement, and it doesn't matter what the political outlook is of a network that promotes this klind of stuff.
No worries, jec22. What a slow, mild day on the floor. Trade volume went like this: Dec. corn traded 163,000 contracts, Jan soybeans had 79,000 traded and Dec. wheat 27,000.
don, I well know the point you are making...that said, I love federally subsidized crop insurance. so do all ag bankers. Many sell the stuff and loan money to farmers. Kinda "double-dippin' " wouldn't you say??? It could be debated who is subsidized, the farmer or the insurance company, but either way i'm on the govt. teat and I know it and admit it and will continue to purchase it as long as it is offered. There I said it. I would truly love to hear the opposite argument and would really like it if a convincing argument could be made. We farmers love to think of ourselves as "independant operators" so any evidence to support that could easily change my mind.
Let me get this straight. You don't think we can survive without subsidized crop insurance? If you're paying let's say $20.00 per acre for federal crop insurance, the same level would cost approximately $48.00 without the subsidy. Are your profit margins so thin that you can't pay an additional $28.00 per acre for insurance? It's been said for years that gov't subsidies never end up in the hand of the farmer. Rather, they end up in the hand of landlords and crop input suppliers. Ending the subsidies on crop insurance might bring cash rents down, but it is by no means a deal breaker of whether we continue to farm or not. If the crop insurance program didn't change except for the subsidy of the premium, why would it be a deal breaker for ag. bankers? I'm quite certain they'd be just as happy to loan you money regardless of whether the crop insurance premium is subsidized or not as long as your cash flow statement shows you can repay the loan.
