Denial, denial, denial

[wd9]

Running a business is just that - running a business to ensure it is profitable over the long term. I am profitable, I pay my taxes so I do my part in terms of supporting those who need government support to make ends meet. Oh, did I mention my partner works off farm, which aids in our success? We do what works for our business model so we can live the lives we want - where we have time to volunteer in our community, our school, and our college. Is it so horrible to be proud of who we are and to not join the misguided mission of ensuring EVERY single farmer is profitable in this country? Profitable is relative - people need to define what their individual goals are and strive towards them instead of doing things the exact same way over and over again and expecting a different result.

Being profitable on my own farm, which allows me to be part of my own community through time, donations, etc is very different than me volunteering to be less profitable to ensure that every other farmer makes the same. Communism never works with humans so define your benchmarks and figure out a way to get there.

[oneoff]

We all live in the same universe; but do not agree on where the center of that universe is or should be. Your model of what has worked personally may well be a model that should pushed to be duplicated so you are surrounded by successful farmers in your community. If however this model can't be duplicated because there aren't enough struggling farmers that can be fed off and absorbed from to reach that goal; then the plan is only getting rid of your neighbors and not attempting to pull all the community to higher standards and averages.

[wd9]

Big assumption on your part that my surrounding farmers are not also competitive. We have a marketing and research club which pushes our skills and profits greater then each of ours alone. Stop telling me what my business model and community is made up of by your assumptions. You have said nothing of your own innovations or sense of community but just that all farmers should be the same. Sorry, but that is bullshit and unrealistic.

[wd9]

Since this thread is about denial, i think oneoff you would be in serious denial to think all farmers will be profitable no matter what you propose. To do so would make it even easier for our expenses to be driven to the zero line of what the market would bear and none of us would make money. Maybe the CWB should market everything, rent every acre exactly the same, and we all get exactly the same price. But even then a group will make money and a group will lose money and everything in between.

[oneoff]

Its damn easy to follow what is best for me #1. Statscan doesn't compile statistics solely from telephone interviews. When the farm income figures from everyone who submitted a tax form give a set of data that indicates farmers aren't making significant revenue (or maybe none at all) off their farm production); how could anyone only see that averages are meaningless because they are personally satisfied with their individual lot.
I've always avoided pointing fingers directly; but one necessarily has to have the right to make general comments; or else you are left with nothing to focus your remarks on.
For those who are confident in never having to rely on society; continue to look after yourself. You are only fooling yourselves to think that the center of the universe even knows you exist. You are just as dependent and insignificant as anyone else.

[oneoff]

Here the government goes again. React to one crisis; but not another. Make it look like every farmer with a flooded or unseeded acre is going to get $30.00 of taxpayers money. Promote the idea that government is looking after all farmers; while no farmer will apparently admit this fact. Privacy laws will protect the identity of self sufficient; smug and smart who will grab it as their entitlement too. Never will they admit they are no different than the pan handlers they most likely dispise.
Oh! and the reaction (from interviews on tv) is that it isn't enough.

[wd9]

Oneoff, you will never as a whole (all farmer profitability) get this to happen. For you to think otherwise is truly denial.

2 farmers can't agree let alone tens of thousands. The best example i can recall was at a standing committee in ottawa with the NFU arguiung against biofuel because everyone else was for it. Laughable, certainly to the MP's excluding the easter bunny of course.

I don't care what stats say, take a stroll thru the parking lot at the next farmtech conference and tell me just how desperate farmers are. If it was full of 1978 rusted out fords, i would believe you and the stats.

[parsley]

1. Interest eating up farmers:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/09/f-farm-income.html

2. Farm Debt by lender:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-014-x/2010001/ct001-eng.htm


3.Satistcs:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-014-x/21-014-x2010001-eng.pdf

4. If interest rates rise, farmers are dead like a mole in the trap:

http://www.canadianagrifood.ca/?p=527

Some of you have indicated if the yields are there, you're home free.

Nuh. Nuh. Your nightmare is interest rates hiking up.

And they will! Pars

[wd9]

Well, if interest rates go up and farmers borrowed beyond their means go broke, land rent comes down, machinery prices come down, lots of auctions with good buying opportunities and the circle of farming life starts all over.

Not sure why there can not be a separation between business and emotion in farming.

[oneoff]

wd9: All the ingredients are there for individual opportunity to seize the leftovers of another round of others misfortunes and mistakes. No denying that. Believe me.
The side you miss is that every business has some foundation and runs within some principals. Farmers can act like sharks and be the first in on the kill. You may be feast while the chum is plentiful. And you will easily become fat and big and more self centered; but little else.. But, I've even seen younger farmers voluntarily split rented land rental opportunities. Such examples involve a slight detachment from the tendency to look after number one (and only number one). It's the way of attempting to live with others; instead of living off others.