Yes VS NO on Flood Help!

[oneoff]

You live by the sword; then you die by the sword; or variations thereof.

[parsley]

To review my message:

1. Read what you write, out loud, to your family.(Several comments prompted my post as well as a post from the other day) It was a SUGGESTION, you will note, skhadenuf.
2. Both the folks lobbying for gov't handouts and those who are not, have a forum in AV where we disagree on the political structuring of farm income. (It is a defined difference of opinion, whether we call "Help" to the government or not, and it's a good thing we are able to debate it.)
3. We often write things we would rather redo.

skhadenuf,
You defined your problem:

"The market is not compensating enough when we grow a crop to cover years like this when there is nothing at all you can do and you're wiped out"

You also defined how government programs don't meet your needs:

"CAIS PROGRAM IS THE MOST CORRUPT, INEFFECTIVE, UNFAIR, UNTIMELY, COSTLY, AND MANIPULATED, OPEN FOR FRAUD PROGRAM IN HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE"

And then you suggest a revised government program, only this time the new skhadenuf version:

"Of which by the way all we need is a program we buy a dollar amount say 250 and acre and different levels of coverage. You'd get rid of thousands of nerds crunching numbers filling out forms, have a definate number to manage your farm, and would be responsive within weeks of your harvest or disaster occurring"

My point, skhadenuf: Going to government for Versions 7, 8 , 13, 24, 55, 76, .... will get farmers nowhere. There will continue to be the "unfairness" issue. Going to government means government looks after government/ government employees. IMHO.

My observation from watching history, right back to the old PFRA payments is I sense:
..the same arguments,
.. the same spanking new 'this-time-we-got-it-right' Version.
..And "He got more than me" anger.

Relying on government compounds frustration and dependence. Pars

[skhadenuf]

Absolutely I offerred what is wrong with cais so have how many others and more and more are coming out now each day offerring what is wrong. You are implying now that don't change it because nothing can be good for everyone and maybe there is no perfect solution but do we have to choose the worse option of all, and it's not unexpected all those with the good weather in the recent past don't want to change things that way they can continue their I am smarter than you and impress all the nerds on their "management" skills when the reality is whether you make money or not is determined by the variables such as did you get 25 inches of rain in a month or 6 or 7 spread out over the summer. I will add another point, Since governments give you 100% interest on your deposit on day one, we believe when you have a loss like this year to be fair to the taxpayer your gov amount put into agri-invest should come out in disaster times and be deducted from the amount of your ad-hoc payment.But you know why that won't happen because the "smart managers" have the influence with the nerds only what the "smart managers" are forgetting is that if the weather pattern changes in time they'll be the ones sitting with next to nothing to take out of Agri-invest and then we'll see who's able to walk and chew gum.
Tell me pars who are the greedy whiners the ones asking for enough just to survive in a year where weather has wiped them out, or the ones who don't want to give up their excessive gov subsidy free money that they don't even need because weather has allowed them to grow a crop?
What is your solution?

[vvalk]

skhadenuf
When will the subsidies or free cash end? Not 2 months ago the govt announce drought payments and now its too wet payments. Every year there will be some sort of disaster. Whether its a 1/100 or 1/10 or 1/1 year disaster. So like the Wheat Growers suggest, in their latest statement, lets take all this ad hoc money they seem to find and put it ino
to some sort of govt programs from the start. Something that farmers can cost share or pay a premium for. They and their banker then can predict and bank these programs and we in the Agribusiness can run our business like every other segment of society. Only then can we get rid of our image of cap in hand, plaid shirt, flat brimmed hat etc image we have with the urban populations. I know I would like to see this day.

[skhadenuf]

Yes walk, I offerred some other suggestions like voluntarily buying the dollar value coverage a person wants, if an individual doesn't think they need it don't buy it, but then live and die by the consequences. some on here are trying to portray that I am looking for a windfall handout every year and that's not the case at all, just something that I can take to the bank and then be able to deal within in the bounds of what I know I have concrete and solid without accountants working constantly at it, having to worry about this adjustment that adjustment and everything else constantly changing and tied up in appeals etc.
Maybe have this program built into a better crop insurance after all it would be a dollar value coming from combo of grain value and bushels. one of the positives of crop insurance is an adjuster comes your farm your claim complete it's done and relatively soon after you get paid. Done deal move on to next year. Purchase insurance against being too wet, etc. there is more than one possible solution, this cais is simply out of control and has to go, the wages saved by eliminating all those number crunchers itself would cover a huge part of premium for a better program, and man are people starting to realize this.
Someone else may have a better idea there are lots out there lets here them debate them and get it done, but this time let's have the farmers themselves input what is needed not just the number crunchers.

[oneoff]

You must surely start with the assumption that you are dealing with public money; and this precious commodity needs to be protected as well as spent wisely on hundreds of other competing demands. Remember that farmers are relinquishing some of the control of their destiny; which is exactly as it should be when you are making yourself dependent on other parties. A lot of farmers will need to have an attitude adjustment and fine tune their negotiating and public relatios talents. There have to be bean counters or nerds (not hired by farmers or threatened or interfered by farmers) or it will be even worse chaos. Your simply can't let the receivers control the piggy bank or you would see anarchy and the base instincts of human nature immediately rise to the top.
First society has to decide if it will operate under survival of the fittest; everyone is equal; socialist; communist or some mixture of the above. We've taken the easy way of an unspecified all of above depending on the moment and how loud the squeals of hurt.
The only thing that will work is "set the rules and stick by them 100% of the time". Everything else is covered by individual acts of charity and social assistance to those who simply can not look after themselves; from whatever cause or misfortune..
Everybody seems to agree with setting rules and abiding by them; but get sidetracted as soon as unexpected disasters renew the call for handouts. Maybe that's another level of previously agreed to repayable emergency loans; or buying a public interest in wetlands etc. etc could have a place. Regardless; everyone has got to agree to and support farm playing field rules; clearly defined within the rules of the government payments. But then I remember its almost impossiible to get three farmers to agree on anything. Well we'll just have to work on that on won't we. Otherwise this is going nowhere.
So don't tell me we need changes. There will be no agreement on what those changes should be.

[bucket]

Oneoff

Good comments but are you just talking agriculture?

It seems illogical to say farmers, who currently have a natural disaster on their hands or something that is out of their control, to not be helped out. Then say that the auto companies, who through their own mismanagement be given tens of billions of dollars.

Industry is industry. Agriculture is an industry. The governments have set a precedent of bailing them out whether it was the industry's fault or not.

And if you talk natural disasters, it seems that canada has spent a fair amount for foreign countries' natural disasters as well. At the risk of being called ignorant - why isn't haiti insured for their losses? Rather than coming to Canada for help?

Either way Canada has set a precedent of helping out, I don't know if it is right or wrong.

But if Canada can spend tens of billions for the auto companies own mismanagement and disasters in Haiti, then somewhere in the middle is the same precendent to help out western canadian farmers. Because this falls somewhere between a natural disaster and mismanagement. I am leaning towards natural disaster.

But from one other angle if the crop would have went in perfectly, doesn't anyone think this money would have came through agristability because of lower crop prices and lower margins anyway?

[bucket]

Ok Skhadenuf, lets play in your field, but lets be civil and unbiased.

I understand your theory of a program of purchased insurance, and if you could get around the abuse issues it could work in the perfect world.

Abuse, to me, is biggest issue and as you mentioned about shifting inventories from father to son, fertilizer bill to grandma etc, its been done by many, but as time goes on, many of them will/have been caught up to.

Regardless, how do you curb the manipulation in your program? Increase the premium? Once the premium is too high what do you think will happen to the participation?

How many years do you allow multi year disasters such as your circumstances and if the premium rises based on risk, how many years could your operation participate?

I think being able to purchase at a level of $250 would be too high as now you have a level of insured profit. Other than life, insurance is meantto be a cost recovery or replacement. Once the insured amount is at a profit, how much would people try in questionable years?

You talk about getting rid of administration, that's virtually impossible with any program. As a former employee of the banking industry, adminstration helps drive the process.

If you think Agristability has created the motorhomes, new machinery, family trips etc, how much do you think being able to insure a farm at $250 per acre would result in the same?

And finally, if you can be neutral on this one.

Two farms can be side by side but end up on 2 different positions (financially, production etc) after each year. Compound the effect of this after 5, 10, 25 years. You claim that weather is the only reality for the difference, somehow I don't see it the same. Weather does play a role however there are hundreds of decisions made daily, monthly, yearly that are different in each farm operation which is management.

If your farm could switch with our farm, would your opinion be different?

We have not experienced the hardship you have, and believe me I feel for you. Other than 2005/2006, we have been fortunate enough to have good profitable years. In 2006 we did what ever we could to dry the land and get it seeded and the small percentage not seeded cost us a lot of money because the net revenue from the crop far out weighed the few bucks from the unseeded acre payments. There were quite a few neighbors that decided that $50 was way better and did not turn a wheel. We gave the crop what it needed to get the most production and we are doing it again as we speak (top dressing, quilt etc)

In my mind you need to have some percentage of historical performance factors to provide support for operations and that is what we currently have. They are not perfect, lots of areas to be improved, all of your's and others' comments are justified.

If they change or get rid of the existing programs, it will not change our farm.

[oneoff]

Just a thought about other industries. You just have to have a little more respect for Ford and some of the other auto makers for how they conductrd themselves while their competitors did what they did. Down the road; it is hoped that consumers may well reward such companies who didn't get to the public trough to the same extent.
Its exactly the same with the farmer handouts. Not all farmers got/want blatant govewrnment payments; exactly the same as not all automakers.

A little more recognition of this fact is in order; especially by the recepients of these monies.

[bucket]

parsley and oneoff

Ford is not getting help?????


The U.K. government announced that it will provide £360 million ($550 million) in loan guarantees from its Automotive Assistance Program to Ford Motor Co. (F: 11.10 0.25 2.30%) to support its research and development for commercial vehicles and low carbon emission diesel and petrol engines. The grant will also back Ford’s investment in new production facilities for low-carbon engines across the U.K.