Just for you three amigos Agstar and Burbert, cchurch.

[Fransisco]

"when you marry the corporation to the state you get what we have now and it ain't free enterprise"

Then stop calling it free enterprise and or Capitalism.

I'm all for separation of State and the economy in the same way as we have the separation of State and Church and for pretty much the same reason.

As to your theory of all profits going to zero in a free enterprise system, it's just nonsense that can't be backed up by actual events. The freer an economy is the more it grows, this is nothing new, and it doesn't happen because profits go to zero.

Yes there are corrupt things that happen from time to time in a free enterprise system. But the people, like at ADM, get caught and go to jail. In the government run systems they happen far more often and when people get caught like the wheat board did with their futures fiasco last year the people involved get bonuses.

[jensend]

profits go to zero because competition tightens margins. competition also fosters innovation and creativity for shortterm advantage but then the playing field levels again and margins shrink. we may not have free enterprise but we do have capitalism because capital is synonymous with power in our system. big corps are just as bad as big govt. the financial institutions that crippled our financial system are still handing out big bonuses.

[cottonpicken]

I wouldnt be farming if i didnt carry grain forward.

Youd be amazed how grade/price changes over time.

My goal is to grow 6 crops but only market probably a couple a year.So it would be a multi year marketing process.

I can feel snappys eyes rolling about just buying the paper but i think that only applies to a few crops like canola.

[cottonpicken]

Of course today i'm buying asian art work and playing craps so my ideas are not run a da mill.

[Fransisco]

Checking, once again you're making assumptions about others that you know nothing about. I do everything I can to avoid dealing with the board. It's not that I've convinced myself I have no choice it's just the reality of the situation that too often I still have to.

I'm not ready to pick up my entire farm and move it to the other end of the country or the world just because of the wheat board. Yes in general it is the non-board grains that pay the bills, no argument there. But I'm not going to risk going broke growing certain non board crops in years when they will loose me money. That's not just sacrifice, that's stupidity.

What's the lost opportunity cost of holding oats for two year? How much interest are you paying on what it cost to produce that crop over two years? And then how does one pay to put the next years crop in the ground without credit? Maybe your banker doesn't have any limits, mine does.

I also don't buy the argument that you have to wait for things to get worse before you can fix them. Would you rather have all your crops sold under the board system before we try to change things? Would you rather Canada turn itself into Venezuela or Zimbabwe before we try to turn things around? I highly doubt it.

[Fransisco]

Cotton, don't get me wrong in general I am not opposed to guys carrying grain forward. All I'm saying is that its not for everyone, nor should it be.

[chaffmeister]

Parsley – you weren’t being scolded.

My comment about the “selfish view” of farmers was aimed at single desk supporters. My experience is that they don’t care that the single desk is impeding prosperity elsewhere (like on your farm); in fact, it may be impeding prosperity on their own farm, but as long as they have their security blanket, they’ll fight to keep it.

On the other hand, I’ve always felt that people support an open market because they see that all will gain – even the single desk supporters. To me, that makes them a different animal than single deskers – altruistic vs selfish. That’s the irony in this whole debate. The single deskers support the concept of farmers working together for the common good, when in reality it comes with a huge cost and some gain and most lose – there is no common good. Others support the open market because it allows individuals the freedom to build vibrant businesses, and by doing so, everyone gains.

That you responded as you did makes me wonder; do you support an open market because it will mean more wealth and prosperity for the communities we all live in, or do you just want it for your own farm’s gain? I thought I knew....

Even if you want an open market for your own gain, I’m ok with that. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But when you want to make changes (even if it’s for selfish gain), the most important thing you can do is to influence others. Your strategy of dismissing like-minded stakeholders and potential supporters is well noted.

How’s that working for you?

[checking]

No Fransisco, I'm suggesting a way of rather than physically throwing the bastards and their desks out the window, and the trouble that would cause me, that I'd prefer to starve the bastards out.

I'd suggest to you, and others that believe you have to deal with the Board on their terms each and every year to the quantity they want to accept, up to your last bushel, that you are cutting your margins way to thin for survival. I might lean to agreeing with you, if your yearly production was static, but even you have had banner years. Don't tell me you're forced to sell board grains in those years.

To your argument on carrying costs and interest. I've held durum from 2001, 2003, 2004, and sold in 2007. Some of the data suggests a $190.00 to $260.00/tonne type range for early years. Sold in 2007 for over $500.00/tonne.

Got to go, football game started.

[parsley]

Central planning countries set up central planning because they claim it creates more wealth.
It doesn't

The CWB claim a monopoly gets more money for farmers, and their monopolist farmer supporters also claim it is the reason for the monopoly because it gets them more money. It doesn't. The USA farmers pocket more.

1. But university research departments thrive.
They love CWB funding.

2. Accredited agents (Viterra, Cargill, etc. thrive.
They love their CWB contracts

3. Accredited exporters thrive
They love their CWB contracts

4.The CGC is fat and can't live within their continuous supplements
They love CWB support

5. Flour Mills are guaranteed a continuous source of cheap grain,and have it branded thanks to the CWB
6. Some Malting companies are so shameful, I won't even mention them.

Just a few,. But any of 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 5 or 6 are neither like minded or an equal stakeholders to any CAPTIVE farmer. Instead, they thrive under the umbrella of a compulsory CWB. So to think of "getting them onside" is not realistic. They LOVE the spot they are nested in. They can also import any amount of grain they want, anytime.

Farmers have all the risk, and get paid last.

Only farmers can help themselves. We cannot expect the other players to help us. They won't, and don't have any duty to us, either. Farmers have attended meeting after meeting after meeting of platitiudes, waiting for someone to rescue them. No one will. Why would they? And if an issue ever does arise for a stakeholders, they stamp their feet until the CWB quietly concede another CWB goodie, at the farmers' expense.

Presently, the CWB's latest propoganda machine delivers the message that the Board is farmer-owned and farmer-run, which is designed to elicit "time and understanding" from the farmers who demand change.

It infers that the old government-run Board died and a new farmer-run Board is the toddler, and they flog this concept of a farmer-run Board as a hunky-dory gift for farmers. That's the concept being sold.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But anyone who mimes CWB lingo, only serves to re-enforce it in the press and in the farm community. Farmers must always, always differentiate in the minds of readers and media, in order to counteract CWB propoganda, that the concept of a compulsory Wheat Board is very very different from the concept of co-operative marketing by willing farmers;hence I pinched Weber's words. He's usually careful with his words.

The CWB are forking out millions to jell the idea in the minds of the public that the Board is Farmer-owned.

It's not.

The CWB continues to operate exactly as a Government legislated instrument to keep the price of grain paid to farmers low, keep flour cheap for consumers, and all the while keep other ag sectors and stakeholders vibrant with cheap raw material.

Farmers are not earning enough if you look at Western Canadian farmgate net income,in spite of the the ninety bushel to the acre talk about wheat still damp in the bin which adds up to millionaires$$ in novice taxpayers' ears.

There is no nice way to say what I just said. I don't have nice material to work with. I realize that corporations like Richardson's or Dreyfus won't appreciate candid views.

My words are often not politically correct. Neither is saying Quebec gets most of the Federal ag dollars.

And I don't say them lightly, nor to win a popularity contest. I don't get paid for saying what I say, either. I am neither a team player nor one of the boys. And admit am not good at planning lunch for the next meeting when' la trip and lunch' is the sole agenda on too many ag plates these days. But, I have consistently harped on the need to put more money in farmers' pockets and it is incumbent upon every farmer, indeed, on every individual in Canada to look after themselves and their families FIRST.

That is not selfish, That is human nature. Parsley

[Fransisco]

Starving the bastards out is an interesting strategy but the thing is, is that it's been going on for years already and hasn't made a lick of difference. The board has bled a lot of permit book holders, acres and tonnage over the last twenty years and really doesn't care. Those in charge get their fat paychecks and bonus's regardless.

The only way I see things changing is by either electing people to the board who don't hate freedom and can do basic math or a federal government with some backbone.

[chaffmeister]

Parsley -

I have no argument with anything in your most recent post expect that I wouldn’t characterize others in the grain business as narrow minded, as you do.

Working to protect your own interests is not selfish. If you trample on others to succeed or get what you want, now that’s selfish.

If I build a successful business of which others enjoy the benefits – suppliers are successful by selling to me, employees make a living working for me and customers enjoy buying my products – am I being selfish? Of course not.

If some people force others to use a marketing system that they believe works for them but know it doesn’t work for the others, are they being selfish? You’re damned right they are.


Character is defined not by what we get in life, but rather by what we give.

[parsley]

I don't consider any of the auxiliaries of the grain business that I identified as narrow minded; rather I consider them very pragmatic.

The single desk is their cash cow. How stupid would university research departments be, to recommend drying up their funding? Lawsey.

It is only farmers who can reign in their money back instead of hoping some one else will do it for them.

Farmers have "given" until their wallets limp badly, but I don't think this resulting limp-affliction can necessarily be said to indicate or measure significant variations in character.

A lack of ready cash doesn't give even farmers an automatic membership in the Trinity.