Mexico Connect
Forums  > General > General Forum
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


norteño

Sep 15, 2010, 6:25 PM

Post #26 of 64 (5711 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [Reefhound] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
The article makes clear further down that the 2.6% increase is the yearly average during the period in question, rather than the total increase over that period.

In addition the article contains this statement, based on government figures:

In Mexico 92% of the corn harvest is of white corn, which satisfies the domestic demand for human consumption, while 7% is of yellow corn and 1% of other kinds.


(This post was edited by norteño on Sep 15, 2010, 6:33 PM)


norteño

Sep 15, 2010, 7:24 PM

Post #27 of 64 (5700 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [norteño] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Checking around, I see that according to the USDA 1.85 billion bushels of corn were exported from the U. S. in 2008, to whatever country. Between 2006 and 2007 corn in the U. S. was bringing somewhere between $3 and $4 per bushel, and fluctuated a great deal in 2008 due to the weather but was back down to $3.40 in March of this year. There is just no room there for conspiracy theories about "hundreds of billions of dollars" to open up the Mexican market to American corn.

Also, the Mexican government subsidizes white corn production, and agricultural planners want to reduce the amount of corn raised in Mexico and shift to other crops but are facing strong resistance from farmers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn

http://moneymorning.com/2010/05/12/corn-prices-2/


(This post was edited by norteño on Sep 15, 2010, 7:47 PM)


YucaLandia


Sep 16, 2010, 7:27 AM

Post #28 of 64 (5663 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [norteño] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
noteño,
Interesting point about the price of corn in the USA on US markets. What was the price of US corn that was sold to Mexico, below market prices, through special NAFTA rules.

The documented prices of past sales of US corn to Mexico were reduced by 33% using US taxpayer subsidizes to forcibly dump US corn at artificially low prices onto Mexican markets.

An April 2010 UCSD study found:
"American corn subsidies, which led to the flooding of Mexican markets with American corn following the signing of NAFTA, is the primary factor responsible for the post-1994 internal displacement of rural farmers in Mexico."

"... it is evident that the subsidization of American corn drastically lowers both the price of corn and levels of employment in the agricultural sector, triggering the out-migration of rural corn farmers ..."

"Federal subsidies granted by the United States government ensure that American corn producers maintain a substantial comparative advantage over their Mexican counterparts."

" The study’s conclusion exhibits that the trade-agreement’s elimination of trade barriers has resulted in a comparative advantage for American producers which has jeopardized the livelihood of rural farmers. "
http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/

I don't see any evidence in the data you provide that contradicts or negates any aspects of US taxpayer subsidized of cheap corn onto Mexico markets.

I have never said that there is or was a conspiracy.
- That is a label attached by detractiors on this website who can find no data to refute the facts that US big agribusiness companies make billions in profits from the US Govt's forced unfair agricultural trade agreements.

Those agribusinesses then contribute billions to US senate and congressional elections, and both politicians and agribusinesses then spend the billions on TV new program advertising - and the scale of this spending has been in the $100's of billions of dollars. The mutually-shared self intrests of the govt, media, and big business has cost US taxpayers billions in subsidies, and cost Mexicco millions of jobs.

Is that a conspiracy? I see no prima facia evidence in the data, just rich and powerful interests taking advantage of ordinary people on both sides of the border => driving illegal immigration and the narco traficante problems.

Which may explain why the US & Mexican govts have made little headway with immigration and drug problems, because data show the roots of the problems seem to lie in US Govt farm policy and US Govt trade policies, and US agribusiness abuse of those policies.

No claims of conspiriacies here, just powerful people doing what powerful people do: using their power to benefit themselves and their partners.
Cheers, steve

p.s. Please, I propose again that the critics offer either: valid data that contradict my proposals or
please, offer workable solutions to the problems of narco traficantes and illegal immigration.

The seemingly grumpy folks that chuck what I think is just old fruit and veg, seem to continue to reveal their lack of information and their inability to refute or rebut the facts presented, so, they have so far been left only with stooping to name-calling and labeling.

- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com


YucaLandia


Sep 16, 2010, 7:34 AM

Post #29 of 64 (5662 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [norteño] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
More data from April 2010, peer-reviewed, published research:

"The trade imbalance, created by billions of dollars in yearly subsidies for American corn, encourages American agribusiness to increase amounts of corn exports into the Mexican market. As evident in the following chart, corn produced in the United States is disproportionately advantaged by subsidies from the (US) federal government, ranging in the billions of dollars."

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/

Does $56 billion of US Taxpayer monies spent to subsidize dumping of US corn onto Mexican markets, driving US agribusiness profits and the losses of Mexican farm jobs, trouble anyone else?

One might also note that the total of the US Taxpayer subsidies exceed the annual value of the Drug Trade, in comparing relative magnitudes of the problems.
Cheers, steve
- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com


Reefhound


Sep 16, 2010, 8:07 AM

Post #30 of 64 (5649 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
What troubles me is why one feels that a trade agreement should be a one way street that only benefits Mexico. this isn't a "forced unfair agricultural trade agreement". Mexico voluntarily signed onto and enacted NAFTA. You want to end the part about agricultural exports? Then I want to end the part about maquiladoras. Bottom line - the U.S. has a trade deficit with Mexico so stop talking about this "trade imbalance" in one specific product. Mexico overall is getting the better end of this deal.

What you call a "subsidy" another person might call a "market equalization". It's no secret that the U.S. operates on a higher cost basis. If it costs $5 to make a widget in the U.S. and $2 to make that widget in China, the market is going to buy from China which is why they are making much of the shoes, textiles, electronics, and household products. If the U.S. wants to compete in a given market with a given widget (perhaps they are ok to give up the tennis shoe industry but not the corn industry) then they either must reduce costs to match (not possible if you want to pay livable wages) or offset the cost basis differential.


chris cooper

Sep 16, 2010, 8:10 AM

Post #31 of 64 (5647 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Isn't it odd that many Americans complain about social programs receiving taxpayer money but readily accept corporate welfare?

P. T . Barnum summed it up perfectly.

Here is a typical example of this hypocrisy:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/...90132_didier18m.html


(This post was edited by chris cooper on Sep 16, 2010, 8:13 AM)


Reefhound


Sep 16, 2010, 8:26 AM

Post #32 of 64 (5643 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [Reefhound] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Mexico established a program called Procampo to give billions in assistance to these small farmers who would be hurt by agricultural imports. It is not the fault of the U.S. that the rampant corruption in Mexico means that 80% of the payments have instead gone to wealthy and prominent families including relatives of drug lords like Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and Arturo Beltran Leyva as well as senior government officials.

http://articles.latimes.com/...subsidies7-2010mar07


(This post was edited by Reefhound on Sep 16, 2010, 8:29 AM)


chris cooper

Sep 16, 2010, 8:27 AM

Post #33 of 64 (5641 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [Reefhound] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Would you like to offer proof of your claim? Or is it just something else that conveniently fits your opinion?


Reefhound


Sep 16, 2010, 8:28 AM

Post #34 of 64 (5641 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [chris cooper] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Isn't it odd how many more Americans than Mexicans have corporate jobs that pay decent salaries and benefits that allow them to live in nice houses, drive nice cars, buy new clothes, and vacation in Mexican resorts with money to burn?


donemry

Sep 16, 2010, 8:32 AM

Post #35 of 64 (5637 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
I guess I just can't quit. You are misrepresenting numbers.

The USA exports about 16% of its corn crop. Of that number, less than 14% goes to Mexico. Simple math says that not more than 2.2% of the total crop goes to Mexico since the USA is not the sole exporter of corn to Mexico.

Thus, not more than 2.2% of the total subsidy went to "undermine" the Mexican economy.


Reefhound


Sep 16, 2010, 8:32 AM

Post #36 of 64 (5637 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [chris cooper] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Added a link, here's more.

According to "Subsidising Inequality," Procampo, with a current budget of about 1.25 billion dollars and whose mission has been extended to 2012, excludes most of its target population and is slanted to favour wealthier producers.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52843

Mexican president Felipe Calderon announced a new USD 16 billion financial aid program for farmers in rural Mexico last month. The program, the largest of its kind in the history of Mexico, includes millions of dollars in subsidies to Mexican producers of corn, beans, sugar cane and milk.
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/...-barriers-set-expire


DavidHF

Sep 16, 2010, 10:31 AM

Post #37 of 64 (5612 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [Reefhound] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
WTO replaced GATT in 1995.


YucaLandia


Sep 16, 2010, 12:40 PM

Post #38 of 64 (5588 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [Reefhound] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Hey R-dog,
Have you been promoted?

"... stop talking about this "trade imbalance"...'
- -
Do you now have the authority to order other posters to stop posting facts and statistics that disagree with your points of view?

Would it help if I submit future posts to you for your prior approval, before i post them? Just kidding. hahahahahaha.

Again, this seems like more emotive replies like the prior old fruit and veg tossing,
Cheers, steve
- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on Sep 16, 2010, 12:41 PM)


YucaLandia


Sep 16, 2010, 12:52 PM

Post #39 of 64 (5581 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [donemry] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Hi donemry,
"I guess I just can't quit. You are misrepresenting numbers. "

Specific references to actual misrepresentation might help us readers. General charges of misrepresentation seem like a variation off of name-calling.

Were the $56 billion of US taxpayer subsidies of dumping corn onto the Mexican market by 2006 somehow a misrepresentation?

Has the 33% reduction from market prices from Govt. subsidies for US corn exports become a misrepresentation because you say so?

The % amounts of US exports are not so important, when those exports have been used to intentionally dump corn onto the Mexican market at US Taxpayer subsidized expense of $56 billion - causing billions of measured and 15 years of publicly reported damage to the Mexican farm economy = which happens to be the biggest sector for supplying/creating illegal immigrants....

I think we need to reform unfair US trade policies, and reform NAFTA - and we need a good guest worker program - to have a better shot at actually reducing illegal immigration and Drug War problems.

Again, people have the opportunity to choose to propose solutions, yet some folks seem to want only to criticize w/ un-documented claims.

Offer some good alternatives to current policies.

Cheers, steve
- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on Sep 16, 2010, 12:53 PM)


norteño

Sep 16, 2010, 3:06 PM

Post #40 of 64 (5551 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
It is still unclear to me how Mexican food production has been adversely affected and farmers displaced by importation of corn when they still supply the corn for human consumption and had never raised in the first place the yellow corn that is imported for animal feed and industrial uses, and which has helped Mexico become the world's largest poultry producer. The truth of the matter is that the U. S. taxpayer is subsidizing pork and poultry in Mexico.


YucaLandia


Sep 16, 2010, 4:23 PM

Post #41 of 64 (5537 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [norteño] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Norteño,
The last journal article i referenced explains in detail the US complicities and direct causes of US govt. actions being the cause of displacing of Mexican farmers off the land and out of agriculture:
NAFTA AND U.S. CORN SUBSIDIES: EXPLAINING THE DISPLACEMENT OF MEXICO’S CORN FARMERS
"... American corn subsidies, which led to the flooding of Mexican markets with American corn following the signing of NAFTA, is the primary factor responsible for the post-1994 internal displacement of rural farmers in Mexico. ..."
- -
but their facts about the US taxpayer subsidies of $56 billion on corn sold to Mexico may be all wrong.

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/...exicos-corn-farmers/
cheers, steve
- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com


donemry

Sep 17, 2010, 9:19 AM

Post #42 of 64 (5464 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
The chart you present in post 29 is the total of all subsidies for all US produced corn. It is not the value of subsidies for corn exported to Mexico. As I said, those subsidies would be about 2% of the figures in your chart.

Here is some more detailed info.

http://farm.ewg.org/...00&progcode=corn

You can make a more convincing argument if you drop the ideological elements from your thinking.


(This post was edited by Rolly on Sep 17, 2010, 9:42 AM)


YucaLandia


Sep 17, 2010, 8:38 PM

Post #43 of 64 (5402 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [donemry] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
donemry,
You are correct. I checked the official USDA corn export numbers for 2003, (the last year for complete data that I could find on the internet), and during that year, US Taxpayers paid only $3,271,909,900 in subsidies to lower the price of US corn from $3.75 down to $2.20 on 7.1 million metric tons of US corn exported to Mexico = 34% of Mexico's 2003 corn production.

(The $3.4 billion dollar subsidy represents the NAFTA mandated reduction from $3.75 per bushel to $2.20 per bushel on 7.1 million metric tons, reducing a fair market price of $7.92 billion down to that actual $3.272 billion subsidized total USD of subsidized corn exported to Mexico in 2003. This is a different and additional NAFTA subsidy paid by US taxpayers, on top of the $3.44 billion subsidy paid by the USDA to US Corn dealers => so, the table of figures you offered is an apples-to-oranges comparison of USDA subsidies vs. NAFTA subsidies.)

Does a $3.3 billion dollar US Taxpayer NAFTA subsidy on US corn, displacing 34% of Mexico's corn production, directly affecting millions of Mexican farmers, - by reducing corn prices for Mexican farmers by more than 70 per cent since 1994 by mid 2003 - trouble anyone else? A 70% drop in personal income, directly caused by a foreign govt policy, would get more than the ideological attention of most people.

http://books.google.com/...0exports&f=false

University of Wisconsin reported;
NAFTA and US Corn Export to Mexico
  • U.S. corn exports to Mexico have increased by 240 percent in the 1994-2003 period compared to the 1984-1993 period.
http://dairynutrient.wisc.edu/375/page.php?id=332


Even the NY Times reported:
http://www.nytimes.com/...o-damage-mexico.html
"...The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday..."

Going back to the original proposal of this thread, doesn't this sort of US govt. subsidizing contribute to some of the economic problems in Mexico, particularly among poor farmers = US complicity in Mexican problems?

So, if the folks that disagree think that over $3 billion a year in US taxpayer subsidies paid out on just corn subsidies to dump cheap US corn on Mexico, payments that have directly harmed millions of relatively poor Mexican farmers, shows no US complicity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

If you agree that these large subsidies represent unfair trade practices, then you might also consider that the US subsidies have contributed to both the Drug War problems and illegal immigration problems. These prospects give me hope, because it means that US voters and politicians could actually make positive changes in US policies, that seem very likely to improve both illegal immigrant and drug smuggling problems.

Agree to disagree?
Continue with immigration and drug smuggling policies that haven't seemed to work on either side of the border?
Put ordinary Mexicans back to work on Mexican farms by charging fair prices for US corn?
Keep doing the same-old things, and pray that they start working?
- or - Apply new solutions that would put at least $3 billion a year back into the pockets of poor Mexican farmers?

Cheers, steve
- -
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on Sep 17, 2010, 9:16 PM)


Reefhound


Sep 17, 2010, 9:58 PM

Post #44 of 64 (5387 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Why are you so insistent on looking at one isolated product among thousands being traded under NAFTA? If Mexico thinks the U.S. is doing anything wrong, let them file a complaint with WTO. The bottom line and undeniable fact is that the OVERALL trade imbalance between U.S. and Mexico favors Mexico. 80% of Mexican exports are to the U.S. and accounts for more than 25% of Mexican GDP. But that's not enough for you apparently. If you want to end NAFTA I'm sure you'll find many Americans quite happy to work with you on that but it appears what you really want is to modify it so that it is a one way street only to the benefit of Mexico.

It's not like Mexico doesn't subsidize it's own exports. Fuel is subsidized and one of the biggest costs of factories. Low property taxes, low minimum wages, minimal environmental enforcement, all benefit the maquiladoras at the expense of U.S. manufacturers. We can end U.S. agricultural exports when Mexico ends maquiladora exports.

If corn prices are down 70% in Mexico, then the solution is for farmers to increase production and yield. Nobody likes losing income but at the same time lower food prices benefit far more people than Mexican farmers. For a poor Mexican trying to stretch his pesos to feed his family, corn prices being 70% lower is a pretty good thing.


db52

Sep 18, 2010, 6:52 AM

Post #45 of 64 (5351 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Here, as requested, is a specific reference to actual misrepresentation from Yucalandia's first paragraph of his first post of this thread, albeit perhaps unintentional.

Yualandia says:

"...artificial (US govt. driven) corn surpluses that flooded the Mexican market, and shifted the balance of food trade to the point that Mexico now imports over 70% of her food from the US..."

Hmmm. Here is what I found using the references supplied:

"The United States supplied more than 72 percent of Mexico's total agricultural imports in 2007, due in part to the price advantage and preferential access that U.S, products now enjoy." (http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/NAFTA.asp)


Now here, for your amusement, is something I found on my own, from what appears to be a rather radical left-wing source.

"Today, largely as a result of this 14-year-old agreement, Mexico's status as a net food importer sourcing 40 per cent of its food in foreign markets has been firmly established." (http://focusweb.org/how-to-manufacture-a-global-food-crisis-lessons-from-the-world-bank-imf-an.html?Itemid=159)

More slippery numbers I suspect, and likely misleading, given the ideological bent of the source. To illustrate--let's say you grow 1000 pounds of avocados and export 399 pounds. Then you import 400 pounds of peaches. Then you eat.

You are a net importer of food!
Forty percent of your food comes from foreign sources!



















YucaLandia


Sep 18, 2010, 7:31 AM

Post #46 of 64 (5337 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [db52] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
db52,
Excellent point about my assertion that over 70% of Mexican food is now imported. That data point came from several days of private conversations with an official in Mexico's department of agriculture. I searched many sources for independent confirmation, but I could find no current data (i.e. I couldn't find public data published on the internet for 2008 nor 2009 for Mexican food import - and I have no access to research libraries right now). For that reason, I came very close to leaving that point out, where unlike the other statistics and data I offered, it depended only on my occasionally suspect memory.

The 70% reduction of corn prices paid to Mexican farmers from NAFTA's inception to 2003 may be the most telling point about US complicity in some of Mexico's problems. It is clear that large income losses due to Govt. fiat, clearly have unbalanced rural lives and communities.

I focus on corn, because the data show that many of the roots of problems of illegal immigration and some of the roots of the Drug War problems have arisen from past US Govt's actions that directly drove millions of Mexican farmers out of business and many many of them depended on corn for their incomes. I also focus on corn prices and corn subsidies, because it is an area that the US govt. could quickly get out of - an area where US govt. policy could be changed in ways that would stop the damage being done to millions of Mexican farmers and rural communities.

It is a fun ideological proposal that poor farmers should simply become 70% more efficient, but when the losses are not due to a free market forces, but instead, were directly caused by Govt. subsidies, it does not seem reasonable to blame the farmers for going out of business.

The role-shift to becoming even a 40% net-importer of food is troubling - a shift that has occurred since NAFTA.
Thanks!
steve
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on Sep 18, 2010, 7:44 AM)


db52

Sep 18, 2010, 7:52 AM

Post #47 of 64 (5329 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
Sir--You have not understood my point. What I mean to say is that (1) if 40% of food consumed in Mexico is imported and (2) Mexico is a net importer....it does NOT follow that Mexico is "a net 40% importer of food." (Please re-read the bit about the peaches and the avocados.)


Reefhound


Sep 18, 2010, 8:08 AM

Post #48 of 64 (5317 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
"I focus on corn, because the data show that many of the roots of problems of illegal immigration and some of the roots of the Drug War problems have arisen from past US Govt's actions that directly drove millions of Mexican farmers out of business and many many of them depended on corn for their incomes. I also focus on corn prices and corn subsidies, because it is an area that the US govt. could quickly get out of - an area where US govt. policy could be changed in ways that would stop the damage being done to millions of Mexican farmers and rural communities."

IF this assertion that increasing U.S. corn exports have damaged millions of Mexican farmers, WHY would the U.S. want to transfer that damage and losses to U.S. farmers?


donemry

Sep 18, 2010, 8:42 AM

Post #49 of 64 (5305 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [YucaLandia] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
You are aware that Mexico also subsidizes corn growers?

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52843



From this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...greement#Agriculture


"Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.[17] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[18]"



(This post was edited by Rolly on Sep 18, 2010, 9:04 AM)


db52

Sep 18, 2010, 9:03 AM

Post #50 of 64 (5300 views)

Shortcut

    

Re: [donemry] US Complicities in Mexico's Destabilzation?

  | Private Reply
There seems to be lots of conflicting information. I still am stuck on square one, trying to figure out exactly what corn subsidies are and how they work!!

First this from Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/...031/p17s01-lihc.html

"We structure the subsidies to make corn very, very cheap, which encourages farmers to plant more and more to make the same amount of money."

But, wait! Wikipedia says the opposite!
http://en.wikipedia.org/...l_fuel#United_States

"...subsidies actually paid directly to farmers that are designed to take corn land out of production and pay farmers to plant grass and idle the land, often in conjunction with soil conservation programs, in an attempt to boost corn prices."
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4