Drifts on the Doorsteps

[charliep]

Interesting these discussions are always about single survival and never include actural price references or individual farmer benefit/risk management ability . They also never address issues that are raised in other threads. Example issues around feed wheat and pricing. Issues around attracting durum deliveries to meet sales. Issues around transfering money from feed barley exports to the contingency. A political discussion rather than a business one.

[parsley]

Actually, charliep, farmers can cut and paste the technical information from the threads you provide information to, and take it to their meetings.

To the CWB.

This thread is the political thread, I agree,(saying get off your lazy asses certainly is, LOL) but actually 5 guys making an appointment with the CWB and making a presentation IS a political act. Not just reading, but doing.

Change is born by all actions, isn't it. All important. Information plus political. And when working parallel, effective.

It's when you'll see paid rats aggressively pop up their heads.
Pars

[Fransisco]

Let me weigh in on the "dual market".

I guess it all comes down to your definitions. For the boardies it seems to mean the single desk which in reality is just a monopoly buyer of western canadian wheat and barley.

To me what a dual market is all about is this.

The CWB is government. It is the government that buys your wheat and barley from you. Yes, the boardies claim that they sell it on your behalf, that they don't actually buy it(even though ownership belongs to the CWB). None the less, however you spin it, it's still government.

You get rid of the CWB and all you have is the private trade.

A dual market is one in which the government (CWB) competes with the private trade for your grain. Not unlike FCC which competes with private banks and credit unions for your mortgage.

The purists(extremists?) on either side of the public vs private debate argue that it has to be either one or the other. It doesn't. As is the case with my FCC example, you can actually have both.

A dual market, or a voluntary CWB is the compromise position between the two extremes.

As DePape and many others have pointed out the single desk offers no advantage to prairie farmers. In fact the opposite is true, it consistently puts us at a disadvantage to other farmers in the world. The reason why is obvious, it doesn't have to compete with anyone for your grain. A dual market would solve this problem by finally giving the CWB the proper incentive to actually do its job.

[stubblejumper]

Rolf Penner for CWB Director in District 10 gGive your neighbours a CHOICE!h
gBecause itfs YOUR grain!h
Skip to contentHomeWhy vote for Rolf?AboutContactDonate & Volunteer © Manitoba Hog Production 1960-2006The Contingency Fund ¨DePape endorses Penner
Posted on November 6, 2008
by rpenner| Leave a comment
Over the years I have spent a lot of time assessing the CWB marketing performance and I have come up with more questions than answers. The CWB is a puzzle; it states it gets the best prices for farmers but time and time again, actual evidence says otherwise. It states it uses market power to extract not only the best price, but premiums. Again, evidence tells a different story.
Rolf Penner gets it. He understands that the CWB could be a powerful ally to Western Canadian farmers and it should be available to those that want it. But those that donft want to use it, should be equally free to use whatever marketing mechanism they choose. Rolf believes that farmers know better than anyone whatfs best for their individual farms.

Seeing how Rolf approaches most things in his life and business I am certain that he would work tirelessly on improving the CWB by insisting on the CWB becoming voluntary and ensuring the CWBfs own marketing tools and techniques are competitive.

Rolf Penner would be a definite asset as a member of the board of directors of the CWB.

John DePape

Author of the Sparks Barley Report

[stubblejumper]

just anouther way to try to get an anti CWB director elected.

[stubblejumper]

I see there are now 6 followers on the blogspot wonder if they all get a vote

[Fransisco]

Why is it that anyone who campaigns on the platform of a voluntary CWB automatically gets smeared as "anti-cwb"?

[jdepape]

This is fascinating to me.

See if I get this right.

Those that want to protect the status quo (the single desk) are the "true guardians" of the wheat board and all its virtues. Like Allen Oberg, Kyle Korneychuk and Stewart Wells. These guys are like heroes to you.

And those that want to change the wheat board to make it better for farmers - which might mean changing or removing the single desk - are "anti-CWB, "detractors", "nay-sayers", or just plain selfish. Like me, Rolf Penner, Brian Otto, and Jeff Neilson. To you, we're the guys in the black hats.

stubblejumper - here's the thing. right now, the CWB is failing miserably at providing marketing value to farmers. You've gone to my blog - read about feed barley, read about durum. The CWB and its single desk has been a total failure. There's no other word for it. I don't even have to exaggerate any facts to make the point. It's obscene how the single desk has interfered with wealth creation in Western Canada - actually, forget about "wealth". We should be talking about how it has interfered with peoples "livelihood".

So to me, if you, Korneychuk, Oberg or Wells want to stand there and say how great the single desk is for farmers and that it must be preserved, all I can say is, with all sincerity - you're all idiots.

If I've messed up and misinterpreted something and you're not saying that at all, then please accept my apology. But then please help me understand what it is you are saying, because for the life of me, that's what I thought you were saying.

Being anti single desk does not mean you're against the CWB.

It means you're for farmers and the communities in which they live.

[stubblejumper]

I see your friends at the wheat growers cry to their lacky Ritz if anyone calls BS on your BS

[charliep]

Note the discussion seems to focus on single desk selling.

On the listening and responding side, farmers are asking for more pricing alternatives. In responding to farmer requests, should the new board of directors look at moving away from pooling for some of their producer payment options.

Example today on durum. Move to a cash plus program for durum where farmers are paid up to 90 % of a price based on an actual nearby sale or group of sales - not based on the average pooled price over a 15 to 18 month period.

[gustgd]

Stubble

I am one of those friends on the Wheat Growers Who went to Ritz. I asked him to talk to the CWB about making comments during this election period. Candidates especially incumbents should be the ones commenting on the direction that the CWB has taken.
Candidates that would throw their neighbours in jail for selling wheat. ESP. after the dismal job that the monopoly has done for WESTERN farmers, have much to answer for.

All we ask for is a fair fight.
The monopoly uses our multi million dollar propaganda department to only show one side during the election period even though it goes against the directors code of conduct.

These elections should be about direction and accountability.

[craig]

Charlie I have seen little to indicate that the board
can offer proper pricing alternatives. Anyone who
hedges knows that the party on the opposite side
of your transaction needs to accept some form of
risk. The board by it's very nature does not accept
any risk. The other side of the pricing issue is that
producers want a clear set price not this washed
down present alternative where the board always
has an out. Your price might be this but in the end
there are no guarantees that is what you will
receive. For that privilege we can pay for a
bureaucracy that offers nothing to the transaction.
We have seen numerous examples of how this so
call risk holdback often ends up in someone else's
pocket at the end of the day. Ultimately the CWB
has spent a huge amount of money to build a dysfunctional system.

[stubblejumper]

gust let me get this straight. the wheat growers can hire depape but the wheat board is not allowed to call BS to his BS

[jdepape]

Wheat Growers pay me?
I'll have to check the mail!

Stubble - please identify the BS.

[tipsy]

dmlfarmer, you were starting to get some admiration from me for your intellectual defence of the cwb and the single desk. That was until you made the moronic statement " in fact democratically farmers have told the cwb and the government in every director election that they want the cwb and the single desk by voting in directors supporting of the single desk".
You made the statement so I'll take it as your serious, but, you really can't be? They may be some what democratic,as any farmer who wishes may toss his hat into the election ring. But,honestly, you believe the cwb election's are or have any creditable?
Let's see, his heinous Ralphie says farmers are going to vote and have control of the cwb fine. He gives the cwb the task of conducting the election. The cwb gives an accounting firm the task of running the election. Accounting firm answers to and reports back to cwb. Cwb sets loose guidelines for voting. Votes are sent back to accounting firm. Cwb and accounting firm sort Thur and count. Cwb and accounting firm pronounce the winners. Cwb determines which candidates have violated the cwb election act and then determines how the penalties or fines well be assigned, if any.
If you want a democratically,accountable cwb election, let election Canada run the election, clean up the voters list, stop the cwb from campaigning before and during an election and lets see who gets elected for directors.
Presently these cwb election are conducted and have about has creditability as a corrupt Indian reserve election or a banana republic election where the military rules the day.

DO you think a province or the feds could be allowed to elect themselves in this mannner?
I guess as long as you get the result you like its fine and dandy...