This week I've been setting the cat amongst the pidgins on the Coles Facebook page, with some help from some very concerned Australians.
I've been asking Coles to detail how they audit and track their overseas supply chains to ensure no factory farmed pork finds it's way into those products they so misleadingly label "Made in Australia from local and imported produce"
Coles
refuses to answer my question directly and have even slyly removed it
from their page meaning it can only be accessed through this link
http://www.facebook.com/coles/posts/425455687518452?comment_id=4085021¬if_t=like
I think it is grossly unfair of Coles
to throw Australian farmers under a bus while they soak up the glory from
Animals Australia's recent campaign against factory farming
when they cannot give a public guaranteetheir imported produce does not come from factory farms.
It really is hypocritical of Coles to expect one standard from Australian farmers while allowing a different standard for their cheaper imported produce especially when Australian farmers have already agreed to phase out sow stalls by 2017 at their own cost while competing with this cheaper produce.
Australian farmers will be the first in the world to completely phase out sow stalls while they are still legal in every country that supplies Coles with pork.
I don't hear Animals Australia pulling Coles up on this either, I wonder how much Coles has donated to their recent campaign? Food for thought.
Is this the kind of food system we really want in our country?
If we demand a certain standard from Aussie farmers shouldn't we demand the same standards on the produce we import?
Sadly it seems we rarely do.
Even our frozen vegetables (also labeled "made in Australia from local and imported produce") are not held to the same standards as many would expect.
Next time your at the supermarket remember that Australian grown produce is more expensive because it is grown to higher standard by people who take pride in the way they treat their animals and grow their crops. I think John F Kennedy said it best "The farmer is the only man in our economy that buy's everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale and pays freight both ways."
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Half Time
First I'm going to make a bold call that will put some noses out of joint.
The Animals Australia's "No live export ban, No vote" rallies held across Australia this weekend were a flop.
Some supporters of the trade and myself attended the Melbourne rally with our big "Save Live Export" banner and stood across the street from the crowd of about 600 people.
A pathetic turnout considering the RSPCA live export rally we attended last year drew 3000 people from Melbourne alone. This rally did not achieve that turnout nationally.
The Animals Australia supporters were in fine form, some of them approaching us for quiet and considered debate where both sides got to say their piece and others simply intent on being rude.
One Animals Australia supporter insisted on standing next to me so that whenever someone asked me why I believed the trade should continue she could then speak over me and preach about how defending live export is "like defending the people who make child pornography because, you know, people make a buck out of it." Several members of the meatworkers union were content to snipe at us for being "greedy farmers" without having enough guts to come and debate or defend their arguments.
Out of this hostile environment something wonderful happened, a man who was passing by decided to stand with us, saying he was a long time supporter. Another man who stopped to wish us well and express support also decided to stand beside us to hold an extra "save live export" placard I brought with me. Passers by winked at us, gave the thumbs up or quietly whispered "we're with you" as they came past . Some stopped to argue with the protesters while others stood with us if only for short while before wishing us luck and walking off to continue what they were doing.
To say the least I was surprised at the number of people walking around the CBD that day that supported farmers and live export.
I can only come to the conclusion that people are beginning to see the truth about the live export trade and maybe, just maybe, the tide is turning ever so slightly in our favor.
For the past 12 months ABC TV has run what could only be described as a campaign against live export with programs such as Lateline and The 7:30 Report pouncing on every opportunity to show a negative live export story while Australian Story and The Project have done everything they can to paint Lyn White as a national hero.
Yet with all this negative media attention people I meet are always quick to condemn what was done to farmers with the live cattle ban last year and most are curious to know the other side of the story. They do not simply dismiss the trade as cruel and they do have an open mind when we give them factual reasons the trade should continue. Most agree the trade should remain when we explain the issues properly.
In short we do have some community support in the cities.
What does it all mean?
We haven't won, not yet. Some how I don't think the animal rights activists will ever stop opposing live export in fact I'm sure they are probably more dangerous now than ever. With compassion fatigue setting in and donations beginning to trail off as people direct the constant stream of emails pleading for more money into the spam section of their email accounts. It is only a matter of time before someone is put on plane to find another one off cruelty incident they can paint as "standard operating procedure".
The game is still on but it's half time. We know the oppositions strategies now, we've even copied a few of them ourselves. The next step is to capitalize on the willingness of people in the cities to hear our side of the story by putting it out there every time we can.
I said in an earlier post that "if we don't fight, we lose", at the time it seemed that our future was very dark but now there is the faintest glimmer in the distance, a light at the end of the tunnel.
Despite the millions of dollars in donations, a concerted campaign by WSPA and The Body Shop and all the friendly media attention they could ask for. The animal rights organizations could only get a fraction of the protesters onto the street they could 12 months ago.
It's safe to say whatever we are doing to fight for this cause, it's working.
At the rally on Saturday, once the speakers were finished and the crowd began to surge toward us to pepper us with questions and insults, one thought popped into my head.
"They've got us surrounded, poor bastards."
The Animals Australia's "No live export ban, No vote" rallies held across Australia this weekend were a flop.
Some supporters of the trade and myself attended the Melbourne rally with our big "Save Live Export" banner and stood across the street from the crowd of about 600 people.
A pathetic turnout considering the RSPCA live export rally we attended last year drew 3000 people from Melbourne alone. This rally did not achieve that turnout nationally.
The Animals Australia supporters were in fine form, some of them approaching us for quiet and considered debate where both sides got to say their piece and others simply intent on being rude.
One Animals Australia supporter insisted on standing next to me so that whenever someone asked me why I believed the trade should continue she could then speak over me and preach about how defending live export is "like defending the people who make child pornography because, you know, people make a buck out of it." Several members of the meatworkers union were content to snipe at us for being "greedy farmers" without having enough guts to come and debate or defend their arguments.
Out of this hostile environment something wonderful happened, a man who was passing by decided to stand with us, saying he was a long time supporter. Another man who stopped to wish us well and express support also decided to stand beside us to hold an extra "save live export" placard I brought with me. Passers by winked at us, gave the thumbs up or quietly whispered "we're with you" as they came past . Some stopped to argue with the protesters while others stood with us if only for short while before wishing us luck and walking off to continue what they were doing.
To say the least I was surprised at the number of people walking around the CBD that day that supported farmers and live export.
I can only come to the conclusion that people are beginning to see the truth about the live export trade and maybe, just maybe, the tide is turning ever so slightly in our favor.
For the past 12 months ABC TV has run what could only be described as a campaign against live export with programs such as Lateline and The 7:30 Report pouncing on every opportunity to show a negative live export story while Australian Story and The Project have done everything they can to paint Lyn White as a national hero.
Yet with all this negative media attention people I meet are always quick to condemn what was done to farmers with the live cattle ban last year and most are curious to know the other side of the story. They do not simply dismiss the trade as cruel and they do have an open mind when we give them factual reasons the trade should continue. Most agree the trade should remain when we explain the issues properly.
In short we do have some community support in the cities.
What does it all mean?
We haven't won, not yet. Some how I don't think the animal rights activists will ever stop opposing live export in fact I'm sure they are probably more dangerous now than ever. With compassion fatigue setting in and donations beginning to trail off as people direct the constant stream of emails pleading for more money into the spam section of their email accounts. It is only a matter of time before someone is put on plane to find another one off cruelty incident they can paint as "standard operating procedure".
The game is still on but it's half time. We know the oppositions strategies now, we've even copied a few of them ourselves. The next step is to capitalize on the willingness of people in the cities to hear our side of the story by putting it out there every time we can.
I said in an earlier post that "if we don't fight, we lose", at the time it seemed that our future was very dark but now there is the faintest glimmer in the distance, a light at the end of the tunnel.
Despite the millions of dollars in donations, a concerted campaign by WSPA and The Body Shop and all the friendly media attention they could ask for. The animal rights organizations could only get a fraction of the protesters onto the street they could 12 months ago.
It's safe to say whatever we are doing to fight for this cause, it's working.
At the rally on Saturday, once the speakers were finished and the crowd began to surge toward us to pepper us with questions and insults, one thought popped into my head.
"They've got us surrounded, poor bastards."
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Meatworks Argument De-Bunked
In today's modern world it pays to be forever wary of that old saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" and the live export debate is no exception. Have you ever noticed that the government never releases a report that contradicts their policy position unless they are absolutely forced to? Those who have followed the climate change debate closely will be able to point to reports from both sides of the debate that are laughable in their attempts to cherry pick and selectively quote data regardless of whether big oil, the government or the UN paid for the research. It happens on both sides. It seems these days our universities do a very poor job of producing seekers of the truth, rather they have become a breeding ground for academic mercenaries that can tip the scales of truth any way you want.
Provided you can pile enough money on them.
That said it will not surprise you to learn the often quoted ACIL Tasman Report was of course paid for by the WSPA, the Heilbron Report by several of Australia's biggest abattoir owners including the multinational giant: JBS Swifts.
These two reports form the core evidence for the argument that live exports can be replaced by a frozen meat trade. An argument often made by Lyn White, The RSPCA and The WSPA. They might feel uneasy about staking their reputations on these reports when people begin to read them closely.
The first and most obvious claim that doesn't add up is the massive amount of GDP we can supposedly create by having Australian meatworks kill the cattle and sheep right here. This won't create anywhere near as many "Australian" jobs as the reports claim, nor will they create as much GDP. The ACIL Tasman report cheekily concedes on page 51 that a cessation of live export would require "some skilled abattoir workers from abroad".
Australian meatworks can't get enough Australians to work for them right now, a large percentage of the current workforce are overseas workers on 457 visas who, as most people would expect, send a large proportion of their wages to their families back in their home countries. This renders the claims for increases in Australian jobs and GDB dubious at best.
Even the much anticipated Darwin abattoir will have an international flavor.
The ACIL Tasman report makes a limp attempt at analyzing foreign markets and makes the assumption that our boxed sheepmeat will be mostly lamb, targeting the emerging and wealthier middle class in some of the counties we live export too. This completely overlooks the fact that live export is often centered around older animals that represent an invaluable source of affordable protein to the poor people of those nations. ACIL Tasman fails to take into account the high processing costs in Australia would effectively price us out of that market.
This Beef Central article explains why it costs twice as much to process an animal here than it does in the USA, let alone anywhere else.
The Heilbron Report does a better job than ACIL Tasman at finding a home for the thousands of tons of extra boxed meat we could produce if we only phased out live export. They didn't even bother to analyze if foreign markets would still buy our more expensive boxed beef but instead make the assumption we can sell that meat to....um...the meat fairies?
ACIL Tasman's solutions for increasing sheepmeat exports boil down to asking the EU nicely to lift their tariffs (good luck with that), a massive promotional campaign and increasing competitiveness. The money spent by New Zealand on promotional campaigns sound like a good investment until ACIL Tasman concedes on page 61 that even they "cannot ascertain the actual return on these marketing activities". The "Increased competitiveness" ACIL Tasman cites as necessary to make boxed meat exports viable (page 63) hinge on "lowering the cost of production" which is a carefully worded way of saying farmers have to take less money for their animals.
ACIL Tasman are dreaming if they think a return to the bad old days when farmers were paid loose change for their stock is going to be a positive outcome for our already embattled rural communities.
Lyn White is often quoted comparing farmers to slave traders for arguing that if we cease live export we will be replaced by other countries that have lower or no animal welfare standards. This has already happened in one market, thanks in part to her handy work.
Boxed beef is streaming in to Indonesia from illegal abattoirs in India after boxed beef imports from Australia were slashed early this year. I somehow doubt that animal welfare is a high priority for these lawless backyard butchers that defy not only the laws of their country but their national religion as well. The black market beef trade makes a mockery of The Heilbron Reports sloppy assumptions that expensive Australian boxed meat can replace the live export trade at all.
Far more likely we will be (as we have repeatedly warned) replaced by countries with no regard for animal welfare.
Provided you can pile enough money on them.
That said it will not surprise you to learn the often quoted ACIL Tasman Report was of course paid for by the WSPA, the Heilbron Report by several of Australia's biggest abattoir owners including the multinational giant: JBS Swifts.
These two reports form the core evidence for the argument that live exports can be replaced by a frozen meat trade. An argument often made by Lyn White, The RSPCA and The WSPA. They might feel uneasy about staking their reputations on these reports when people begin to read them closely.
The first and most obvious claim that doesn't add up is the massive amount of GDP we can supposedly create by having Australian meatworks kill the cattle and sheep right here. This won't create anywhere near as many "Australian" jobs as the reports claim, nor will they create as much GDP. The ACIL Tasman report cheekily concedes on page 51 that a cessation of live export would require "some skilled abattoir workers from abroad".
Australian meatworks can't get enough Australians to work for them right now, a large percentage of the current workforce are overseas workers on 457 visas who, as most people would expect, send a large proportion of their wages to their families back in their home countries. This renders the claims for increases in Australian jobs and GDB dubious at best.
Even the much anticipated Darwin abattoir will have an international flavor.
The ACIL Tasman report makes a limp attempt at analyzing foreign markets and makes the assumption that our boxed sheepmeat will be mostly lamb, targeting the emerging and wealthier middle class in some of the counties we live export too. This completely overlooks the fact that live export is often centered around older animals that represent an invaluable source of affordable protein to the poor people of those nations. ACIL Tasman fails to take into account the high processing costs in Australia would effectively price us out of that market.
This Beef Central article explains why it costs twice as much to process an animal here than it does in the USA, let alone anywhere else.
The Heilbron Report does a better job than ACIL Tasman at finding a home for the thousands of tons of extra boxed meat we could produce if we only phased out live export. They didn't even bother to analyze if foreign markets would still buy our more expensive boxed beef but instead make the assumption we can sell that meat to....um...the meat fairies?
ACIL Tasman's solutions for increasing sheepmeat exports boil down to asking the EU nicely to lift their tariffs (good luck with that), a massive promotional campaign and increasing competitiveness. The money spent by New Zealand on promotional campaigns sound like a good investment until ACIL Tasman concedes on page 61 that even they "cannot ascertain the actual return on these marketing activities". The "Increased competitiveness" ACIL Tasman cites as necessary to make boxed meat exports viable (page 63) hinge on "lowering the cost of production" which is a carefully worded way of saying farmers have to take less money for their animals.
ACIL Tasman are dreaming if they think a return to the bad old days when farmers were paid loose change for their stock is going to be a positive outcome for our already embattled rural communities.
Lyn White is often quoted comparing farmers to slave traders for arguing that if we cease live export we will be replaced by other countries that have lower or no animal welfare standards. This has already happened in one market, thanks in part to her handy work.
Boxed beef is streaming in to Indonesia from illegal abattoirs in India after boxed beef imports from Australia were slashed early this year. I somehow doubt that animal welfare is a high priority for these lawless backyard butchers that defy not only the laws of their country but their national religion as well. The black market beef trade makes a mockery of The Heilbron Reports sloppy assumptions that expensive Australian boxed meat can replace the live export trade at all.
Far more likely we will be (as we have repeatedly warned) replaced by countries with no regard for animal welfare.
Friday, September 7, 2012
The ABC of media bias
I have a little rule I, until now, have always stuck to on this blog and in my general dealings with the media.
Never ever attack, criticize or in any way risk offending a media organization. They are far too powerful and will simply bury you and whatever cause you stand for just for spite if you dare offend their sensitivities.
Today I'm forced to make an exception to that rule after coming across this little gem
Now if that is not a loaded question I don't know what is.
The very structure of the question makes it impossible to vote no and you can bet it won't get a mention on media watch either, one could only imagine the smug reaction from Jonathan Holmes if a commercial news organization tried to get away with skewing a question against climate change in this way.
I have already written a detailed letter to the ABC pointing out where I believe they are exceeding their charter and portraying a biased picture of live export to their mainstream viewers. I received a limp wristed response from Alan Sunderland pointing out that they believed their coverage of the issue was fair and balanced and that both sides of the argument were given air time in their programs, he even cited the example of Barnaby Joyce's two or three 10 second contributions to 'Australian Story' as providing balance to that programs 30 minute lionizing of Lyn White.
Interesting to note Gleys Oogjes' admission on that program "With that first footage we didn’t think taking it to the government would be effective. We thought that exposing it to the community was the first thing to do"
The Four Corners program 'A Bloody Business' has a lot to answer for in terms of bias. The program briefly skimmed over the multi-million dollar abattoir owned by Elders in Indonesia that had been using stunning long before the filming. They also neglected to mention that four other abattoirs were already using stunning with another two in the process of converting. Some twenty five Indonesian abattoirs, accounting for 45% of all the Australian cattle slaughtered in Indonesia were either at or close to OIE standards at the time Four Corners went to air and these abattoirs formed the basis of the closed loop supply chain once the ban was lifted.
None of these facts were given any significant air time next to the constant emotive sad music and the heart breaking footage of animals being tortured in the dingy little backyard kill floors that were portrayed as the norm across the entire country.
Four Corners, it seems, did not want balance to stand in the way of a good Walkley.
For all the supposed "balance" on ABC TV I do not recall seeing one positive story about live export in the last 15 months. I have however noticed the ABC takes every opportunity to present a negative live export story, Lateline (Hosted by Sarah Ferguson's husband: Tony Jones) seeming to be particularly generous with air time on any story that portrays live export as cruel and wrong.
The only exception to this behavior being the excellent Landline program which Mr Sunderland also cited as an example of the ABC's "balance".
Mr Sunderland the majority of Australian voters live in the cities.
City people do not watch Landline, or read ABC Rural or listen to the ABC's regional radio stations that have offered a robust coverage of both sides of the issue.
City people watch the ABC news, the 7:30 Report and Lateline. They have not been shown the human cost of the live cattle ban, the tears of the children whose parents were losing their livelihoods or given any opportunity to understand the many reasons the Live Export trade is necessary to both farmers and animal welfare. They have been fed story after story telling them this industry is cruel and inhumane and that is dangerous in a world where the sensitivities of people in inner city Melbourne matter more to decision makers than the livelihoods of communities in Northern Australia
I want to ask ABC TV
Is it too much to ask for the positive side of live export to be shown in your prime time programs?
Is it too much to ask you to show the suffering you have helped to cause in Rural Australia to your city audience?
Are you afraid of giving informed industry representatives the chance to properly explain the animal welfare benefits of live export and the reasons the trade can never be replaced with a frozen meat trade?
Or would these actions provide too much "balance".
Never ever attack, criticize or in any way risk offending a media organization. They are far too powerful and will simply bury you and whatever cause you stand for just for spite if you dare offend their sensitivities.
Today I'm forced to make an exception to that rule after coming across this little gem
Now if that is not a loaded question I don't know what is.
The very structure of the question makes it impossible to vote no and you can bet it won't get a mention on media watch either, one could only imagine the smug reaction from Jonathan Holmes if a commercial news organization tried to get away with skewing a question against climate change in this way.
I have already written a detailed letter to the ABC pointing out where I believe they are exceeding their charter and portraying a biased picture of live export to their mainstream viewers. I received a limp wristed response from Alan Sunderland pointing out that they believed their coverage of the issue was fair and balanced and that both sides of the argument were given air time in their programs, he even cited the example of Barnaby Joyce's two or three 10 second contributions to 'Australian Story' as providing balance to that programs 30 minute lionizing of Lyn White.
Interesting to note Gleys Oogjes' admission on that program "With that first footage we didn’t think taking it to the government would be effective. We thought that exposing it to the community was the first thing to do"
The Four Corners program 'A Bloody Business' has a lot to answer for in terms of bias. The program briefly skimmed over the multi-million dollar abattoir owned by Elders in Indonesia that had been using stunning long before the filming. They also neglected to mention that four other abattoirs were already using stunning with another two in the process of converting. Some twenty five Indonesian abattoirs, accounting for 45% of all the Australian cattle slaughtered in Indonesia were either at or close to OIE standards at the time Four Corners went to air and these abattoirs formed the basis of the closed loop supply chain once the ban was lifted.
None of these facts were given any significant air time next to the constant emotive sad music and the heart breaking footage of animals being tortured in the dingy little backyard kill floors that were portrayed as the norm across the entire country.
Four Corners, it seems, did not want balance to stand in the way of a good Walkley.
For all the supposed "balance" on ABC TV I do not recall seeing one positive story about live export in the last 15 months. I have however noticed the ABC takes every opportunity to present a negative live export story, Lateline (Hosted by Sarah Ferguson's husband: Tony Jones) seeming to be particularly generous with air time on any story that portrays live export as cruel and wrong.
The only exception to this behavior being the excellent Landline program which Mr Sunderland also cited as an example of the ABC's "balance".
Mr Sunderland the majority of Australian voters live in the cities.
City people do not watch Landline, or read ABC Rural or listen to the ABC's regional radio stations that have offered a robust coverage of both sides of the issue.
City people watch the ABC news, the 7:30 Report and Lateline. They have not been shown the human cost of the live cattle ban, the tears of the children whose parents were losing their livelihoods or given any opportunity to understand the many reasons the Live Export trade is necessary to both farmers and animal welfare. They have been fed story after story telling them this industry is cruel and inhumane and that is dangerous in a world where the sensitivities of people in inner city Melbourne matter more to decision makers than the livelihoods of communities in Northern Australia
I want to ask ABC TV
Is it too much to ask for the positive side of live export to be shown in your prime time programs?
Is it too much to ask you to show the suffering you have helped to cause in Rural Australia to your city audience?
Are you afraid of giving informed industry representatives the chance to properly explain the animal welfare benefits of live export and the reasons the trade can never be replaced with a frozen meat trade?
Or would these actions provide too much "balance".
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Stockmans Re-View- Courtney Smiths Freedom Trader Intensive
Few people know this about me but I'm a forex trading tragic!
Forex is short for foreign exchange which I define as the insane act of trying to make money by swapping lots of borrowed money from one country for money from another country. Then you swap it back when the original pile of money is worth more.
It is a fact that 95% of the people who attempt this usually lose money and then give up, usually after being tricked by a slick salesman into thinking that forex is the worlds easiest 'get rich quick'.
Many lose their entire account by breaking the golden rule of forex trading, never risk more than 1% of your capital.
Forex is not a way to get rich quick, it is a method of making money that is limited first by your lack of dedication, knowledge and discipline and then by the effectiveness of the system you employ, not the other way round. Many people, (myself included in the past)struggle to come to terms with the fact that THEY are the reason they are not successful not the system they trade.
I am not going to paint myself as a guru here.
Overall I have lost money so far but that is swiftly turning around and I intend to be back at break even very soon. The last few months have been a steep learning curve for me but I'm back trading with real money every night and quickly replacing my losses. My automatic trading account has yielded double digit returns so far this year and I expect it to go much further now the summer break is over in Europe.
It is my goal in life to own my own farm. It's a big goal and I'm fully aware that I need $1,000,000 plus before I can even contemplate buying a horse paddock given the current land prices.
Given the scope of my dreams, low risk/ low return investments are simply not an option. If I'm going to achieve the goals I have in mind I have to double or even triple my money every year for the next 10 years.
In the current landscape you have to be a millionaire before you become a farmer.
Enter Mr Courtney Smith,
I read Courtney's book Trading Foreign Exchange early in the year and loved the strategies he presented, they are simple, elegant, easy to use and profitable. Courtney's explanation of the fixed fractional system for limiting risk has changed my trading for the better.
Initially I struggled to implement Courtney's strategies properly, more through my own poor dicipline rather than any problem with the system. Courtney's systems are easily traded in 15-30 minutes a day but the system only works if you work it!
Recently I've tidied up my act and attended Courtney's 'Freedom Trader Intensive' (FTI) seminar last weekend to further my learning.
The FTI focus's more on share trading but forex traders will not be disapointed. Courtney's stock picking method is superior to anything I have ever seen, I traded shares for four years and read 4 different books on the subject and I never came close to finding the common sense techniques I learned at FTI.
Courtney's fundamental analysis methods take every publicly listed company in the world and thins them down to a useable shortlist of around twenty to fifty "best of the best" international stocks. He then shows you how to cull your shortlist down even further to attain "the best of the best of the best".
Courtney then demonstrated how to properly time your entry into the market using proven technical (chart) analysis techniques like the famous 'Channel Breakout'.
The goal is to catch most of the metioric rise of the worlds most dynamic companies while limiting your risk and using your capital to the greatest effect by only having it invested in fast rising shares.
Courtney's portfolio for the year is up 53% so far and I think that result speaks for itself. If you need further evidence he also made several predictions.
His predictions included a sharp correction for Royal Gold (Nasdaq: RGLD) and for a "correction in the US market followed by a rally in the fall" I will be watching to see how these predictions play out.
I enjoyed the Freedom Trader Intensive and would recommend it to anyone who possesses a healthy risk appetite and desire to make money from a limited amount of capital.
Forex is short for foreign exchange which I define as the insane act of trying to make money by swapping lots of borrowed money from one country for money from another country. Then you swap it back when the original pile of money is worth more.
It is a fact that 95% of the people who attempt this usually lose money and then give up, usually after being tricked by a slick salesman into thinking that forex is the worlds easiest 'get rich quick'.
Many lose their entire account by breaking the golden rule of forex trading, never risk more than 1% of your capital.
Forex is not a way to get rich quick, it is a method of making money that is limited first by your lack of dedication, knowledge and discipline and then by the effectiveness of the system you employ, not the other way round. Many people, (myself included in the past)struggle to come to terms with the fact that THEY are the reason they are not successful not the system they trade.
I am not going to paint myself as a guru here.
Overall I have lost money so far but that is swiftly turning around and I intend to be back at break even very soon. The last few months have been a steep learning curve for me but I'm back trading with real money every night and quickly replacing my losses. My automatic trading account has yielded double digit returns so far this year and I expect it to go much further now the summer break is over in Europe.
It is my goal in life to own my own farm. It's a big goal and I'm fully aware that I need $1,000,000 plus before I can even contemplate buying a horse paddock given the current land prices.
Given the scope of my dreams, low risk/ low return investments are simply not an option. If I'm going to achieve the goals I have in mind I have to double or even triple my money every year for the next 10 years.
In the current landscape you have to be a millionaire before you become a farmer.
Enter Mr Courtney Smith,
I read Courtney's book Trading Foreign Exchange early in the year and loved the strategies he presented, they are simple, elegant, easy to use and profitable. Courtney's explanation of the fixed fractional system for limiting risk has changed my trading for the better.
Initially I struggled to implement Courtney's strategies properly, more through my own poor dicipline rather than any problem with the system. Courtney's systems are easily traded in 15-30 minutes a day but the system only works if you work it!
Recently I've tidied up my act and attended Courtney's 'Freedom Trader Intensive' (FTI) seminar last weekend to further my learning.
The FTI focus's more on share trading but forex traders will not be disapointed. Courtney's stock picking method is superior to anything I have ever seen, I traded shares for four years and read 4 different books on the subject and I never came close to finding the common sense techniques I learned at FTI.
Courtney's fundamental analysis methods take every publicly listed company in the world and thins them down to a useable shortlist of around twenty to fifty "best of the best" international stocks. He then shows you how to cull your shortlist down even further to attain "the best of the best of the best".
Courtney then demonstrated how to properly time your entry into the market using proven technical (chart) analysis techniques like the famous 'Channel Breakout'.
The goal is to catch most of the metioric rise of the worlds most dynamic companies while limiting your risk and using your capital to the greatest effect by only having it invested in fast rising shares.
Courtney's portfolio for the year is up 53% so far and I think that result speaks for itself. If you need further evidence he also made several predictions.
His predictions included a sharp correction for Royal Gold (Nasdaq: RGLD) and for a "correction in the US market followed by a rally in the fall" I will be watching to see how these predictions play out.
I enjoyed the Freedom Trader Intensive and would recommend it to anyone who possesses a healthy risk appetite and desire to make money from a limited amount of capital.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
My interview with ABC Rural
My interview with ABC Rural from the rural report (22/82012) set to pictures I took during the trip.
The picture featuring me shows me holding down a young bull that cut it's leg. In order to prevent the wound becoming infected we sedated the animal then washed, disinfected and dressed the wound with a bandage. He walked off the boat in Israel.
Another photo shows cattle resting contentedly on freshly laid sawdust while they chew their cud.
Don't believe everything the animal rights activists tell you, live export stockmen put a surprising amount of effort into caring for their animals and there is always two sides to every story.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Does my cat have a statistically better chance of surviving on a live export vessel than at an RSPCA shelter?
It's amazing what you find when you cut through the emotion surrounding live export and start looking at the hard figures. Live export boats are often accused of being "Death ships" and are branded "ships of shame" by one group of animal activists.
If you look at the 2011 figures for live export vessels on the DAFF website you will see that Australia exported over 3.3 Million animals that year alone. Sadly some 20,288 animals were lost but that means that 99.39% of all the animals exported arrive alive at their destination. Many of these animals do not just arrive alive, they put on weight. In some cases (Indonesia for example) the exporter is paid by the kilogram on arrival for the animals. It is therefore in the exporters interest to use the ship like a floating feedlot and to keep the animals in a contented condition so that they will continue to put on weight and be worth more money on arrival. Any animal that dies en-rout is also a big hit on profitability, hence the low mortality figures.
If you contrast the figures above with the figures provided in the RSPCA's 2010 to 2011 National Statistics the posturing about mortality's on live export vessels can appear ridiculous!
During this 12 month period the RSPCA euthanized no less that 37,177 Cats and 19,583 Dogs!
Together that's way over double the amount of animals that die on live export vessels.
Now of course some of those animals would be sick, injured, old or simply not fit to be re-homed but the devil here lays in what is not shown in the pie graphs of the statistics.
You see there is no representation here for animals that are held for too long or animals that could not be adopted in time but were otherwise healthy. The kicker is that 29% of dogs and 57.5% of cats were put to sleep while the RSPCA NSW branch alone made a whopping 12 MILLION dollar profit. How many more animals could have been saved or kept longer waiting for adoption with that money?
Given the profits involved, the generous amount of money spent on the RSPCA's live export campaign, the RSPCA's other animals rights campaigns and the threats issued to fund political campaigns against an MP who spoke out in favor of live export it would be fair to ask if the RSPCA is doing enough to look after the animals entrusted to it's care. It is rather sad if your cat has a statistically better chance of surviving on a live export boat than at an RSPCA shelter.
The RSPCA's recent lurching into animal rights really comes up in the national figures with this little pie chart.
You see the RSPCA received some 54,398 cruelty complaints, choosing to prosecute only 275 and nearly half of those are livestock. The RSPCA has an interest in prosecuting farmers wherever possible, farmers have land which they can be forced sell to pay fines and the RSPCA has recently been very happy to hop into bed with anti-farmer groups like Animal Liberation and Animals Australia. Every cruelty case the RSPCA can publicize is a gift to the vegan lobby groups that happily portray one off incidents as common practice and farmers as cruel and ruthless industrialists.
Lets not forget that the RSPCA is often consulted by government on ever tightening farm animal welfare standards in fact few non government organizations have so much input into laws they are then entrusted to enforce. Farmers who abuse their animals deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law however it is worrying governments put so much trust into an organization that targeted farmers so heavily during the live export campaign last year.
The RSPCA is a large organization with a vast reserve of money and political pulling power that will continue to target Australian farmers along with other fringe animal rights groups as long as we allow them too. You can make a difference everyday by donating to local shelters instead of RSPCA owned shelters, sharing this blog or others like it and spreading the word with friends.
If we don't fight, we lose.
If you look at the 2011 figures for live export vessels on the DAFF website you will see that Australia exported over 3.3 Million animals that year alone. Sadly some 20,288 animals were lost but that means that 99.39% of all the animals exported arrive alive at their destination. Many of these animals do not just arrive alive, they put on weight. In some cases (Indonesia for example) the exporter is paid by the kilogram on arrival for the animals. It is therefore in the exporters interest to use the ship like a floating feedlot and to keep the animals in a contented condition so that they will continue to put on weight and be worth more money on arrival. Any animal that dies en-rout is also a big hit on profitability, hence the low mortality figures.
If you contrast the figures above with the figures provided in the RSPCA's 2010 to 2011 National Statistics the posturing about mortality's on live export vessels can appear ridiculous!
During this 12 month period the RSPCA euthanized no less that 37,177 Cats and 19,583 Dogs!
Together that's way over double the amount of animals that die on live export vessels.
Now of course some of those animals would be sick, injured, old or simply not fit to be re-homed but the devil here lays in what is not shown in the pie graphs of the statistics.
You see there is no representation here for animals that are held for too long or animals that could not be adopted in time but were otherwise healthy. The kicker is that 29% of dogs and 57.5% of cats were put to sleep while the RSPCA NSW branch alone made a whopping 12 MILLION dollar profit. How many more animals could have been saved or kept longer waiting for adoption with that money?
Given the profits involved, the generous amount of money spent on the RSPCA's live export campaign, the RSPCA's other animals rights campaigns and the threats issued to fund political campaigns against an MP who spoke out in favor of live export it would be fair to ask if the RSPCA is doing enough to look after the animals entrusted to it's care. It is rather sad if your cat has a statistically better chance of surviving on a live export boat than at an RSPCA shelter.
The RSPCA's recent lurching into animal rights really comes up in the national figures with this little pie chart.
You see the RSPCA received some 54,398 cruelty complaints, choosing to prosecute only 275 and nearly half of those are livestock. The RSPCA has an interest in prosecuting farmers wherever possible, farmers have land which they can be forced sell to pay fines and the RSPCA has recently been very happy to hop into bed with anti-farmer groups like Animal Liberation and Animals Australia. Every cruelty case the RSPCA can publicize is a gift to the vegan lobby groups that happily portray one off incidents as common practice and farmers as cruel and ruthless industrialists.
Lets not forget that the RSPCA is often consulted by government on ever tightening farm animal welfare standards in fact few non government organizations have so much input into laws they are then entrusted to enforce. Farmers who abuse their animals deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law however it is worrying governments put so much trust into an organization that targeted farmers so heavily during the live export campaign last year.
The RSPCA is a large organization with a vast reserve of money and political pulling power that will continue to target Australian farmers along with other fringe animal rights groups as long as we allow them too. You can make a difference everyday by donating to local shelters instead of RSPCA owned shelters, sharing this blog or others like it and spreading the word with friends.
If we don't fight, we lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)