Yes VS NO on Flood Help!

[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.

[bucket]

And just to be clear about ford - here is another one.

Grant, subsidy, or bail out?

Ford has finally taken a piece of the pie.

Having been the only US auto manufacturer that has yet to tap into government loans, Ford Motor Co. finally joined its US colleagues, General Motors and Chrysler, in receiving government financing to the tune of $5.9 billion.

The Detroit-based automaker is planning to use the added funds to further accelerate the production of fuel-efficient cars, which by all accounts are the only cars that are gaining in traction as far as popularity and practicality is concerned.

As part of the Energy Department’s program in promoting fuel-efficient cars, the government sector is releasing $25 billion in loans to automakers in their development and production of these cars. Ford was the first to take a bite out of this pie with more manufacturers expected to follow suit.

[oneoff]

You will note that you have quoted loan guarantees. Some would argue that research and development are in a totally different category than direct aid to the bottom line of the shareholders and investors.
I grant you it is a point; but not one that I'm going to pursue until many other issues are agreed to.

[bucket]

They all got loan guarantees. GM has paid them back. Ford and chrysler - not sure.

Repayable loans that helped the economy and kept millions employed.

It worked for the auto industry and the government should have done that for the ag industry. And went to 2-3 billion.

Repayable with a few extra clauses kept the auto companies honest to the point they didn't want the government involved any longer than need be.

[oneoff]

Very good point about repayable. That's what a loan should all be about. Too bad that farmers don't think about government payments as being repayable.

[bucket]

True.

But if farmers didn't have to wait a year and a half for their money things might be different as well.

50 percent of last years durum crop is being forced to be sold into a lower price.

Farmers not only pay a premium for that service it really screws cash flows.

[oneoff]

Nobody should accuse me of saying there are adequate reurns from the farm marketplace. Similarly; we will all feel better and be less of a burden to society; when we get paid by those we sell to.