Tweet
Re: Jim Rodgers calls the next bubble - Food
in bold below...
in bold below...
Originally posted by c1ue
View Post
That's great - but there are plenty of reasons why you can be successful in a business over and beyond fundamental factors.
The point of this discussion wasn't your acumen as a farm manager, the point of this discussion was ag land as an investment. While business development is an investment of sorts, it is a very different type of investment than ag land as a passive investment.
Ag land has been rising for a decade. You dismiss that and turn to gold for comparison. Why do you dismiss what has been an actuality? Will it continue to rise for another decade? Can't say. I see such rise in price highly dependent on inflation, as most "real" assets tend to rise with inflation as people chase such assets to preserve wealth against the paper hangers. To believe farmland would not rise to inflation would be to believe gold will not, diamonds will not, apartment buildings will not, or a host of other assets.
For the vast majority of investors, this is the category ag land falls into.
How can you even BEGIN to make such a statement?! Where is your proof?!
It is because of your purported research that I've asked for you to show this data.
What research you've shown thus far has either been from a hedge fund manager selling his product, or an ag company selling its product, or generic industry information which frankly does not support your thesis, this thesis being that the underlying factors due to population, increase in meat demand due to BRIC/emerging economy, farm yield lack of improvement, etc are far and above supply (population/meat demand) or demand (ag yields).
The research you have CHOSEN to bolster you arguement has been from the sources above, but I have provided other that you have conveniently dismissed. Even if ALL the research were from the sources you cite, would that necessarily make it wrong or fraudulent? You immediatley use such justification to dismiss it all. Do you dismiss GATA for their gold calls? Eric Sprott? Etc? That is a tired old arguement that says if Fox claims it is news it is not because I am a liberal, and if the NYTimes claims it is news it is not because I am a republican. You have yet to PROVE ANY OF IT WRONG. All you do is make unfounded claims as such and ask me to prove it's right whil you SPINNNNNN again and again.
So while you keep saying you've done much research, all I can say is that I haven't seen the convincing part of it.
I am waiting for you to either pay me for the dissertation you seem to want, or PROVE ME WRONG.
Interesting, you're now attacking your own data source. The paper you cited clearly showed ag yields increasing at 1.4% per year, while population is only increasing 1% per year.
I am attacking your spin and pedestrian views of the research.
The paper attempted to disguise this by saying ag yields are behind the curve of having to double by 2050, but of course population isn't going to double by 2050.
There you go again, citing YOUR opinion as fact. How do you KNOW as much? How can you PROVE IT IS WRONG?
So I'd say the person being simplistic isn't me.
Of course not, because you have a bias you cannot prove, but a drive to "win" at any cost, so you SPINNNNN over and over again putting words in my mouth and making false assumptions as declaratory facts.
Neither is the person who is failing to read carefully what is in front of them.
Farming being dependent on another commodity is not a good thing. It means yet another variable - besides credit, weather, competition, etc - which farmers must be concerned about.
It is a variable I believe will be a key factor for my wanting to be in ag. You are free to disagree, but again, like everything else you state, you can prove nothing about it.
On the one hand, this will hurt marginal farmers. This may be great for you.
I have stated as much, good to see you are noting this ...
On the other hand, this is a huge knock on farming as a passive investment, and thus ag land as a passive investment.
I am NOT a passive investor, I am an ACTIVE investor. I grow crops, I do not flip land or buy it hoping to flip it.
You've said there was going to be more demand than supply due to several causes:
1) That population was rising faster than ag yields
2) BRICs and emerging economies were switching to meat
Not necessarily BRICs, as Russia is a no growth zone for all intents and purposes, but yes, that is my belief. The middle class in brasil is growing, the middle class in China is growing, India is getting wealthier. All such populations will demand not only MORE food, but more food for feeding of animals.
Do you dispute this?
NO.
These are categorical statements which are not borne out by the data you yourself supplied.
I see. So you believe population is not growing, and that demand for meat is not growing, and demand for grain is not growing? When you stop picking and choosing your data you will see that is a falsehood.
If weather events are common, then why is it different this time?
When did i EVER say "it's different this time"? there you go again SPINNING my words and stuffing them back in my mouth again. You really are a very poor debater to have to continually do this to me while changing positions all the time.
And furthermore you keep asserting the system is under strain, but you've not actually demonstrated this.
Again, that is NOT what I said. I did NOT say the syetm is "under strain". I said that poor crop yields and weather related events strain a system that is getting tighter. If no such events occur, then there is no strain at present. Yet another SPINNNNNN of my words.
It is your assumption that the system is under strain.
NO, read above. Work on reading comprehension issues again.
This may be true, but so far you've failed to show this.
When crops fail in Russia, wheat prices go up. Simple mathematics my friend. But since you have no knowledge of ag, you probably do not pay attention to such things. Go back and look at what happened to wheat prices when Russia had their wheat fields burning and embargoed all wheat exports. I think that proves the point quite succintly.
It is interesting that now you're changing to 'hedge against peak oil', when previously you were saying ag land was good because of too many people/too little food, bad weather, not enough water, too much meat demand, etc etc.
AGAIN, you must be STUPID or totally DENSE. I have provided a list of WHY I believe ag is a good long term investment. You REALLY should go back and read it. We are back to your SPINNNING my words and restuffing them back in my mouth. I was QUITE SPECIFIC in the past. Don't be so lazy you cannot re-read that list in this thread. If you don't want me to attack you for stupidity, stop being stupid. You are too lazy to not only do your own research on this subject, you are too lazy to even get the facts straight in this thread.
You then agree that there are no fundamental factors which dictate that ag land will keeping going up in price, hence making it a risky passive investment?
NO, I have never agreed as such. You AGAIN have this problem of SPINNING my words and re-stuffing them back in my mouth.
c1ue, you suck as a debater. You keep losing, and resort to spinning my words against me time and again. You continually shift your position. You refuse to do your own research, you CERTAINLY cannot prove me wrong on any aspect of what you keep saying, and you make random assertions with no basis in fact to support your illogical arguements. And yes c1ue, that IS an attack on you. You need to give up this immature "gotta win at all costs" debate style, do a little research of your own, re-read my EXACT words, and give it a real try. Shooting from the hip all the time makes you look foolish. We can keep playing this game if you wish, but there is NO win in it for you so long as you are lazy and incapable of staying on topic, or remaining intellectually honest about what I have said. My words are throughout this thread for all to see. I know EXACTLY what I say, I know YOU are incapable to comprehending them as they are wrtten. You sir, need to get a clue, c1ue.
The point of this discussion wasn't your acumen as a farm manager, the point of this discussion was ag land as an investment. While business development is an investment of sorts, it is a very different type of investment than ag land as a passive investment.
Ag land has been rising for a decade. You dismiss that and turn to gold for comparison. Why do you dismiss what has been an actuality? Will it continue to rise for another decade? Can't say. I see such rise in price highly dependent on inflation, as most "real" assets tend to rise with inflation as people chase such assets to preserve wealth against the paper hangers. To believe farmland would not rise to inflation would be to believe gold will not, diamonds will not, apartment buildings will not, or a host of other assets.
For the vast majority of investors, this is the category ag land falls into.
How can you even BEGIN to make such a statement?! Where is your proof?!
It is because of your purported research that I've asked for you to show this data.
What research you've shown thus far has either been from a hedge fund manager selling his product, or an ag company selling its product, or generic industry information which frankly does not support your thesis, this thesis being that the underlying factors due to population, increase in meat demand due to BRIC/emerging economy, farm yield lack of improvement, etc are far and above supply (population/meat demand) or demand (ag yields).
The research you have CHOSEN to bolster you arguement has been from the sources above, but I have provided other that you have conveniently dismissed. Even if ALL the research were from the sources you cite, would that necessarily make it wrong or fraudulent? You immediatley use such justification to dismiss it all. Do you dismiss GATA for their gold calls? Eric Sprott? Etc? That is a tired old arguement that says if Fox claims it is news it is not because I am a liberal, and if the NYTimes claims it is news it is not because I am a republican. You have yet to PROVE ANY OF IT WRONG. All you do is make unfounded claims as such and ask me to prove it's right whil you SPINNNNNN again and again.
So while you keep saying you've done much research, all I can say is that I haven't seen the convincing part of it.
I am waiting for you to either pay me for the dissertation you seem to want, or PROVE ME WRONG.
Interesting, you're now attacking your own data source. The paper you cited clearly showed ag yields increasing at 1.4% per year, while population is only increasing 1% per year.
I am attacking your spin and pedestrian views of the research.
The paper attempted to disguise this by saying ag yields are behind the curve of having to double by 2050, but of course population isn't going to double by 2050.
There you go again, citing YOUR opinion as fact. How do you KNOW as much? How can you PROVE IT IS WRONG?
So I'd say the person being simplistic isn't me.
Of course not, because you have a bias you cannot prove, but a drive to "win" at any cost, so you SPINNNNN over and over again putting words in my mouth and making false assumptions as declaratory facts.
Neither is the person who is failing to read carefully what is in front of them.
Farming being dependent on another commodity is not a good thing. It means yet another variable - besides credit, weather, competition, etc - which farmers must be concerned about.
It is a variable I believe will be a key factor for my wanting to be in ag. You are free to disagree, but again, like everything else you state, you can prove nothing about it.
On the one hand, this will hurt marginal farmers. This may be great for you.
I have stated as much, good to see you are noting this ...
On the other hand, this is a huge knock on farming as a passive investment, and thus ag land as a passive investment.
I am NOT a passive investor, I am an ACTIVE investor. I grow crops, I do not flip land or buy it hoping to flip it.
You've said there was going to be more demand than supply due to several causes:
1) That population was rising faster than ag yields
2) BRICs and emerging economies were switching to meat
Not necessarily BRICs, as Russia is a no growth zone for all intents and purposes, but yes, that is my belief. The middle class in brasil is growing, the middle class in China is growing, India is getting wealthier. All such populations will demand not only MORE food, but more food for feeding of animals.
Do you dispute this?
NO.
These are categorical statements which are not borne out by the data you yourself supplied.
I see. So you believe population is not growing, and that demand for meat is not growing, and demand for grain is not growing? When you stop picking and choosing your data you will see that is a falsehood.
If weather events are common, then why is it different this time?
When did i EVER say "it's different this time"? there you go again SPINNING my words and stuffing them back in my mouth again. You really are a very poor debater to have to continually do this to me while changing positions all the time.
And furthermore you keep asserting the system is under strain, but you've not actually demonstrated this.
Again, that is NOT what I said. I did NOT say the syetm is "under strain". I said that poor crop yields and weather related events strain a system that is getting tighter. If no such events occur, then there is no strain at present. Yet another SPINNNNNN of my words.
It is your assumption that the system is under strain.
NO, read above. Work on reading comprehension issues again.
This may be true, but so far you've failed to show this.
When crops fail in Russia, wheat prices go up. Simple mathematics my friend. But since you have no knowledge of ag, you probably do not pay attention to such things. Go back and look at what happened to wheat prices when Russia had their wheat fields burning and embargoed all wheat exports. I think that proves the point quite succintly.
It is interesting that now you're changing to 'hedge against peak oil', when previously you were saying ag land was good because of too many people/too little food, bad weather, not enough water, too much meat demand, etc etc.
AGAIN, you must be STUPID or totally DENSE. I have provided a list of WHY I believe ag is a good long term investment. You REALLY should go back and read it. We are back to your SPINNNING my words and restuffing them back in my mouth. I was QUITE SPECIFIC in the past. Don't be so lazy you cannot re-read that list in this thread. If you don't want me to attack you for stupidity, stop being stupid. You are too lazy to not only do your own research on this subject, you are too lazy to even get the facts straight in this thread.
You then agree that there are no fundamental factors which dictate that ag land will keeping going up in price, hence making it a risky passive investment?
NO, I have never agreed as such. You AGAIN have this problem of SPINNING my words and re-stuffing them back in my mouth.
c1ue, you suck as a debater. You keep losing, and resort to spinning my words against me time and again. You continually shift your position. You refuse to do your own research, you CERTAINLY cannot prove me wrong on any aspect of what you keep saying, and you make random assertions with no basis in fact to support your illogical arguements. And yes c1ue, that IS an attack on you. You need to give up this immature "gotta win at all costs" debate style, do a little research of your own, re-read my EXACT words, and give it a real try. Shooting from the hip all the time makes you look foolish. We can keep playing this game if you wish, but there is NO win in it for you so long as you are lazy and incapable of staying on topic, or remaining intellectually honest about what I have said. My words are throughout this thread for all to see. I know EXACTLY what I say, I know YOU are incapable to comprehending them as they are wrtten. You sir, need to get a clue, c1ue.
Comment