Denial, denial, denial

[oneoff]

I doubt if we'll get to three soon.
Looks like we lost charlie about dinnertime today. I think he snuck out without answering if he stands behind the statistics that he directs you to.


He started a crop insurance thread to fine tune the fairness of that great institution that only government could subsidize..... I mean make payments to. Still I haven't decided if this government program is really a payment or an exercise in busywork. I prefer to use such time to make some money on my own; or stir the pot in the hope that over time; some of my thoughts may evolve into the ideas that some others may make their own.

[charliep]

Actually no problem with the numbers with the caveat they are aggregated
based on a process of which I participate in to a small extent.

As indicated, I will see a presentation by Statscan on Tuesday. Your
posting have provided some interesting questions.

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

Insurance is all about 'cross subsidisation'.

If multi-nationals get involved... do you really think it would be cheaper or better coverage?

If someone steals you neighbours truck... or puts a rock through a rotor... we all pay!

What exactly is the difference... except if CDN crop insurance were commercial... rates would be going up to pay for the oil clean up in the Gulf of Mexico... or fixing the world trade centre after 9-11!

[TOM4CWB]

Pars... Oneoff...

My bet is that you are true farmers... and won't agree for long!

<(>:{ GRIN!

[oneoff]

That may be true; but I almost promise that we won't become enemies. And further Tom; I'm just about certain the same could be said about you and I.
We're all in this together; and we as farmers certainly have enough others who are not our friends.

[oneoff]

Who knows; just a little more work on charlie and he still might be number three. I detect just a slight weakening.

[oneoff]

Who knows; just a little more work on charlie and he still might be number three. I detect just a slight weakening.

[charliep]

Actually as TOM4CWB and parsley will tell you I am just a simple
mechanic who tries to understand how things work and fix them
when they go wrong. Not an designer, architect, engineer or
policy guru.

The topic is interesting to me because of projects I work on and
the discussion I have with others as a result. A project I will be
involved in is the competitiveness initiative in Alberta - includes
all industries but there is a group working on grains and oilseeds.

[parsley]

"government program is really a payment or an exercise in busywork"

One is the other; hence, no mechanic can avoid becoming one or the other; the fix: a crop insurance contract has not passed this farm's desk for decades. Pars

[oneoff]

And we agree on that too. Wow!!!

[charliep]

Perhaps it is because you are both among the wealthy agricultural
aristocracy and can afford to carry the risk based on the wealth you created
(read profit you have re-invested) over your career - anomalies to the
arguments presented that all farms are financial failures. Maybe you live
the good lives and weather doesn't impact your businesses. Maybe organic
doesn't have a fit with crop insurance.

To help me understand, you believe a farmer with some level of debt can
afford to go without crop insurance of some form - public or private - when
a crop disaster in any year could put them out of business or take them
years to payoff? If you were a banker loaning money to a farm client, would
want to see risk management plan which included some form of production
insurance?

[charliep]

By the way, nothing new in the arguments. The ideas presented in other
venues and lots would support reduced to no government involvement in
crop sector risk management. Still curious how this new supply managed
grain sector is going to work. The test to your theories will be in the current
crop when mother nature put your supply managed theory into practice.

[oneoff]

Very astute charliep. On some of your guesses you are close to the mark; on others you are so far away you wouldn't believe it.
It is curious to think that there appears so little support to drag farmers up to a higher level; and much more tendency to want to drag everyone down or at least keep the status quo which is simply a rather poverty level for the majority as proven by Statscan.
Its also curious that a crusade to improve the lot of the majority is sort of led by those who have the least to gain by themselves.
You also wonder if there is an army of two (or possibly a potential three) who probably don't even know each other; and how many of the rest even care.
And finally why are there so few questions asked of those who apparently do things in a little unorthodox way; when there could possibly be something gained by looking at real problems with a slightly different perspective.

[oneoff]

I may very well end where I started. The basic problem of deliberately aiming to produce more than the marketplace can handle is not 100% of the production; it is the 5 to 15% (plus or minus) considered excess supply. The damn insane fools amongst us who year after year see that as their ticket to finally get ahead; only cooperate in years like this where; on average; all the crop simply couldn't get put in and excess water obviously took its toll across most regions.
One way or another we need those decreases every year to get the decent prices on the other approx 85 to 95% of production which the marketplace can handle at significantly better prices; and nowhere near the 9 cent pigs, worthless cows and cheap cheap grains we get when we produce with reckless abandon.
I think charliep is hinting that there is support in other important circles for decreased government support. This will evolve on its own; with some obvious hurts; but there are also right now cries of pain from a system which is far from perfect; and I would argue has not served most farmers adequately or fairly. (And curiously as both charliep and I have pointed out this comes from a supposed minority perspective; and from those who may have the least to gain; or need to gain).
It might be prudent to prepare for what might very well happen; and not have the changes come as a complete suprise. Repeating something over and over and expecting a different result is not smart.
By relinquishing market power; farmers have not gained strength. By refusing to agree on anything we get exactly what we deserve. We suffer along with a series of 2 to 4 year dictatorships; apathy; and injustice in what was meant to be a shining example of democracy and fairness.

[parsley]

A simple hardworking farm woman is not aristocracy, charlie.

Perhaps setting money aside every year for a few years, to cover problems on a day that pours disaster might be a solution, charliep.

What about a farmer self-discipling himself from buying the top of the line fancy half tons, toys, vacations, top of the line machinery, and thus instead of becoming so indebted, where there is zero room for error, he establishes not only a pool of cash, but more importantly...has exhibited the ability to be responsibly able to be credit worthy. Kind of like you pull yourself away from the free booze at s sponsored event.

It's called a savings account. For rainy days.

According to statistics, farmers are deeper in deep than ever before. Canadian credit cards are maxed out.

I say this with the best of intentions: The farm famililies who discipline themselves will survive. They are called grown-ups.

I say that because the banks don't HAVE to loan money to me or you; and an established spendthrift will not be viewed as a solid loan applicant. And the ag sector as a whole will probably be "cutback" in the banks' overall lending scheme.

Just my humble opinion. Not a palatable one for those who live on the edge and resent their standard of living being eroded.

It will. Pars