The CWB Debate Gets Personal

[katoe]

Interesting that depape and his so called monitor come on the scene just when the cwb elections are on

[CeePen]

Wow, talk about paranoia. Just because someone
points out the obvious about the CWB's
shortcomings, it doesn't mean they are being paid
to do so. I find the scare tactics embarrassing.
Nobody is paying John. Nobody is paying me.

And what kind of argument is getting a final
payment? That's like saying the government is
doing a great job because you get an income tax
refund. It's your money. You just have to wait a long
time to get it.

Could someone who supports the single desk
please use some real numbers? Just once.

[jdepape]

Hoppsing:

Who's paying you?

BTW - no one is paying me. But then, you knew that, didn't you? When the CWB wants to discredit someone, they always do their research.

[jdepape]

katoe:

<a href=http://www.cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/>The CWB Monitor</a> shows up at CWB election time and you find it interesting?

You seed in the spring, don't you?

[wmoebis]

Okay I don't understand!

I am a producer and do know a little about quality and quality control. Yet I get shot down and told that I can't understand anything about discussion because I don't grow that commodity. Even tho the topic wasn't about growing.

Yet people like DePutter and Depape can get into middle, give advice and get support even tho they aren't even farmers and don't grow or sell a bushel.

I guess if I don't want debates to get personal I would stay out, especially if I have nothing at stake.

I grow, I grade and I sell My crops. Not trying to disrespect anyone, just my humble opinion. To me fair is fair, even on an open forum.
End of De story for me.

[jdepape]

Hoppsing:
About missing key points and/or distorting facts – let’s look at your last post:

You’re happy with the CWB’s feed barley GDCs and EPOs that “have consistently given me at least a $0.50/bu premium over domestic bids”.

<b>Distorted Fact #1:</b> The CWB GDC prices work back to roughly competitive values in Southern Alberta – but are quite a bit lower in NE Sask (where I figure the guys who have anything to sell could really use some good prices right now).

<b>Missing key point #1:</b> Domestic prices would be higher if the domestic and export markets were allowed to arbitrage. Shame on you for not mentioning it; you - of all people - should know this to be true!

You say “And I know I will be getting substantial future payment(s)”
<b>Distorted fact #2:</b> Substantial?! Really?! How do you know that?! The CWB’s public statement says nothing of the sort.
<a href= http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/contracts/cashplus/gpbarley/>GPCs</a>

<b>Missing key point #2</b>: Shortly after the GPCs became public, Ian White wrote: “The possibility of extra revenue flowing to farmers after the close of the marketing year had not been advertised because the CWB is first and foremost offering a cash price for feed barley. Just as market upturns mean additional revenue to the program, sudden market downturns, contract execution problems or other unanticipated costs all have the potential to draw earnings from the program. We advise farmers to make decisions about the Guaranteed Price Contract based on the guaranteed cash value offered.”

Same point: White has written “Should there be additional profits generated from the cash program over the course of the year, farmers will receive even more.” <a href=http://www.swbooster.com/Opinion/2010-09-01/article-1718443/Feed-barley-exports-create-opportunities/1>Ian White</a>
Doesn’t sound like “substantial” is a word that should be used here.

Do you know something the rest of us don't?

You suggest domestic demand is down and we should look at other commodity prices.

<b>Missing key point #3:</b> Take a look at a chart comparing barley to corn prices. It’s dramatic – domestic barley prices have not kept pace with corn because they don’t need to. Very few guys are able to sell at CWB prices and so are forced to sell at domestic prices.

You say: “I have also noted that U.S. barley bids have been consistently below CWB values (in the so called open market).”

<b>Missing key point #4:</b> US exporters are not bidding for feed barley because the rail freight capacity is already taken up by corn and wheat. Why bid for something that you can’t move to market?

This one's not your but it fits in the "distorted fact and missing key point debate": On the CWB's website, it states:

"...the Guaranteed Price Contract also gives farmers the option to price grain at current international values."

The thing is, you and I both know that the GPC prices negotiated by the CWB are substantially lower than the export values. Farmers are NOT pricing grain at current international values.

Don't distort facts or miss key points when you criticize someone for doing the same thing. You lose a lot of credibility.

[jdepape]

Correction to Distorted fact #1:
CWB export prices are indeed higher than domestic prices in NE Sask - but if the <b>real</b> offshore values were quoted, domestic prices they'd be much higher.

[charliep]

The frustration in Alberta is on the execution side and the ability to actually
participate. You have to be close to an elevator/company that has won a feed
barley tender to do a GDC and from there, one of lucky individuals who are
there in time to sign up. Logistics have not been perfect either as a result of
the plugged situation on the west coast. Add in frustration with multiple
programs and from there prices/pricing alternatives.

Could be worst. Could be talking about feed wheat.

[Fransisco]

What I find fascinating about the whole "who's paying you argument" is how one sided it always is.

The CWB has a very large and well paid PR department that is constantly telling us what a good job they're supposedly doing. CWB directors who tell us what a good job they're supposedly doing are also well paid. You can't open a farm paper or listen to an ag radio show without being hit by some kind of slick, high priced, board propaganda.

Yet people who use verifiable facts to honestly critique board performance are always assumed to somehow be "on the take". While those who we know to be deep in the boards pockets, who we know for certain are being paid to defend the board automatically get a free pass.

The whole argument itself is bogus because the rightness or wrongness of an argument does not hinge on the persons motivation for putting a particular argument forward. But the hypocrisy of those who think it does really is amazing to watch.

[redbaron]

I am not a durum or barley grower. Tried both but have to much disease in my area.The dollars that have been documented - which have been lost in sales or redirected at the CWB are unreal.

If you look at the CWB as a corporation and we are the shareholders. The shareholders (growers of the crops)lost millions which no one will argue about.Just look what happened to another CEO who did the same thing. The money he moved is peanuts in comparison to what happened here. Conrad Black went to jail for it. Many will say he deserved it. That is not the point. Money was not paid to those who should have received it - shareholders. I am certain if this would have taken place south of the border or in most other democratic countries - law suits or charges would have taken place. If Mr. Black's case is any indication - I would have bet the CWB would have lost.

Only in Canada can we get away with this. I think it is very right and important to have individuals like John and others show what the real costs are of this institution.

We can argue and spin it any way we want. The bottom line. It has cost millions and this is not the first time nor unfortunately the last if this institution continues.