Denial, denial, denial

[charliep]

20 years worth of Canada farm programs used in the OECD producer subsidy equivalent calculation for the last 20 years. Interesting. From Larry's link above.

<a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/22/45559449.pdf?contentId=45559450">oecd</a>

[oneoff]

OK charliep Lets go in baby steps. You say the numbers don't prove my point. Then what are the numbers for net farm income (obviously not including off-farm income and obviously giving an allowance for for return to labor and obviously a fair return to equity for the 1.3 million that you say each farmer is worth)
You shouldn't have to do your homework on that; because surely someone knows this situation very well. When literally billions are spent in government subsidies every year; surely everyone knows the fundamentals of the problem. But probably not; because you then say what is a government subsidy. Well for starters its pretty obvious to me its every dollar of crop insurance premium paid by all levels of government; every costly stability program attempted; every dollar exemted for PST; all the marked fuel not collected; the wages paid for administering the program; the security and office rented; costs of adjustesr; auditor costs etc. etc. required to stop farmers en masse having to quit production (because they can't afford these losses) are government payments to farmers. Make no mistake; without government subsidies in the past 25 years; farming would not be recognizable as it is today. There would also be farming and an agriculture industry; just slightly different hurts. The answer also isn't to drag the rest of the agriculture industry down to farmers levels. This has been suggested too.
Its sad to think I have to direct spokepersons back to the same Statscan data that you directed me too. Its even sadder that you won't accept those figures or have to say that you're not sure what they mean. This is what a really big lie is all about.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

Excellent points;

Oneoff;

"If corporations or wealthy investors take control of our land and farms, our
food systems and ecosystems will be seriously damaged."

This is who owns SM5 NOW.

How did they get rich?

The consumer paid to have them 'buy' their quotas... legislation extracted the money from consumers.

Cattle farms have been devastated by mad cow. Pork by prices that only the wealthy of well financed corporations could survive.

When chicken had to depopulate... consumers paid to destroy the flocks through fed. programs.

Farming in western Canada... is at best a risky venture...

fARM GROSS REVENUES... support the Canadian economy many times over... and make it 'profitable' and productive.

I suggest that where weather impacts farming... capital costs will decrease for land. Where land is productive... costs for land will increase.

We are not going to get out of this alive... make sure you know where you are going...(when 6 feet under) and are happy each day with decisions and community.

No one with an ounce of common sense promised prosperity at every turn...

'If it does not kill us... it will make us stronger' is a good character builder... we ARE rich... just not in the 'worlds view' of economics.

If I can't get along with neighbours... and need to pack a gun to protect my business and family:

THEN I would be 'poor' indeed!!!

Hope you can enjoy a little sunshine today!!!

Bless You and yours... hope you can find happiness... amongst all the rain clouds!!!

[parsley]

oneoff,

I'm not quite clear.

Are you proposing a cure by
(a)A legislated quota system for grain

or
(b)A self-imposed disciple of quota for grain.

[parsley]

Any program that is subsidized by government money is a handout charliep.

Every dollar!

Maybe 'handout' grates the sensitive recipient.

How about a gift from the taxpayer? Or how about forceful extraction of some taxpayer's earnings? Benevolent gifting?

Take your pick.

Cold Truth: Farmers get a lot of tax dollars through lobbying, and also avoid paying a lot of tax money.

42,000 farmers in Saskatchewan. Each and every one of them have been granted a capital gains exemption. (Who will do the math? I can't add, remember?)

Let's call a spade a spade, folks.

[oneoff]

. You can build sufficient character with only moderate doses of suffering. My view is that after a certain point your resist oppression and maybe even attempt show the oppressors a dose of their own medicine (all in the interests of building character, you know)

[oneoff]

Parsley We can't even begin to propose anything until there is some agreement on the fundamentals or maybe first determine if the alleged problem is significant.
If it takes days splitting hairs as to whether a government payment is a government subsidy; or whether crop insurance is a part of a subsidy; then it becomes evident that there is an effort to take the steam out of a debate.

My view is that it is counterproductive to have excess production available to the marketplace; that obviously has or will depress prices for that raw commodity to the point that cost of production is not covered. Remember that it is not only the small portion of excess that is impacted; it sets the price for all that commodity (and its influence on other commodities).
Preferable the excess should be taken out of the system (or hidden or used in productive creative ways) to make the base supply profitable to produce so we may have sustainable; fairly priced production.
Nine cent pigs; worthless cows and cheap cheap grains should clearly be against the law.

[charliep]

Not the guy you need to convince. People who participate on this site
who have skin in the game and know the needs of their businesses.
Lots inside government like your attitude on reducing commitment to
risk management programs - many would agree farm support have
been the equivalent to taking $100 bills to burning barrel and
throwing a match in.

Not smart enough to make these judgement calls. Only know farming
is a risky business and one bad year can set a farm family back 10
years in planning horizon. That puts a lot risk on farmers in very
cruel and unfair world. This year will be a test - a disaster in western
but how much impact on domestic/world prices?

But perhaps your argument is the crop sector should go where
chickens and dairy are today - domestic only with closed boarders.
Production down 50 % or current production/50 % less farmers.

[parsley]

"Nine cent pigs; worthless cows and cheap cheap grains should clearly be against the law."

My my. Haul me away in shackles, baby. I'll call Jim Chatenay and get an update on the protocol for being shackled. And yes, I have to get my toenails painted.

BTW: Who is the person that should be setting the 'correct price'? Got a link?

I want to make sure that he/she understands that I want to sell my pig for either $0.08 cents, or $8,000.00, depending upoon my mood. Pars

[oneoff]

OK I'll try with an actual example:
Talk to the CEO of any school district in Sask. They will tell you that that provincial government now sets a budget figure for each school district in Sask. There are fixed mill rates through out the province and some of the school divion funding is supposed to come from local taxation. It gets real intesting when you learn the school district could care less (and doesn't intend to make any waves) on the local taxation figure; because whataever happens; the provincial government is going to cut a cheque for the difference between whatever is remitted from local taxes and what the set budget figure as determined by the province. The school divisions are elated with the stable funding.
This is exactly the same as the market place coming up with insufficient funds for farmers ; with government payments topping farm income up to whatever the government decides to provide.
The school funding scheme is only a few years old; but the farm income payment scheme is well established.
Live and learn; but don't act suprised. I guess some find it comforting to be dependent.

[oneoff]

Parsley It's the government setting the price; because they are topping farm (or school boards budgets) up to what they decide you should get.
And parsley; with contaminated flax on all sides of every organic operation; and GM alfalfs sprouts ripe for positive test results and imminent GM wheat contamination coming to all our areas; just how are organic buyers reacting to the Canadian out of control situation. Don't forget that organic farmers inquire every year about my "contaminated" grains for planting their organic crops.
But don't take any of this seriously. Come on ... Really.

[parsley]

My point has always been this:

We get the kind of government we deserve. The only reason property school taxes decreased somewhat is because a few farmers (administratorss fought against it and so did gov't and so did teachers) got mad, held meetings, and said "NO"

Few farmers will take a leadership role. Most of the decision making is left, uncontested, to those who do not care about farmers, but only what farmers produce, hence profit goes to the diggers, while farmers stand back tinidly and wring their hands and yell, "Victim!"

That is of the biggest reasons why I have always tried to take time to write on AV, not because it makes me money, but because farming as a whole will do better if ordinary farmers stand up and say, "Hey, this is my industry, don't speak for me!", and show some hutzpah.

You cannot legislate leadership.Or business accumen. But it can develop. Pars

[parsley]

oneoff,
I believe farmes can make piles of money (there is no one in the world who does not buy food), but the path cannot be legislated. It has to be outmuscled.

We cannot be whoosies. Pars

[oneoff]

Totally agreed

[parsley]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we have TWO farmers agreeing.

This is called progress.

Could we make it three? Three anyone? Going once, going twice...?

Pars