Building a Sound Foundation for Agriculture

[parsley]

Agriculture needs a sound ideological basis to build upon.

Agriculture can be built upon a capitalist basis or a socialist/communist basis.

Not both.

I see many farmers and politicos and commentators and analysts commenting on tinkering.

Tinkering with how to tweak the Wheat Board. How to tweak quota for supply management. Tweak constitutional issues such how to reconcile private farm ownership with racial communes that do not allow private ownership.

It's a waste of time.

We cannot build a solid industry without 1) knowing where we are going, 2) without trust, both of which depend upon an ideological compass.

Family farms have always relied upon private ownership.

Yet many of the same land owning farmers argue that although we should own the land, we should not own the grain.

It is folly to alot time to argue about tinkering; about whether the contingency fund is ferreting unrightful money away from a barley pool account.

The real problem is whether or not a farmer should be forced to participate.

We must decide if we are to be communists or to be capitalists.

We have to decide what ideological direction agriculture must build upon.

The future holds the threaten of policy divison which cannot be reconciled, and which will destroy and eliminate the trusting unprepared.

Surely, as adults, we can forge one ideological direction. Pars

[agstar77]

Your logic falls down when it runs into the importance of the food supply and the power of the consumer. The pure capitalist model will not be allowed to rule the food chain. In other words government will not allow the populace to starve to give capitalists their due. You only have to look into the U.S. and see the farm support programs. They are not there to help farmers, but to insure cheap food.

[parsley]

Then, would it be fair to say you support the "ideal" communist system, where government owns your land as well as distributes food equally among the all peoples, and distributes the profits equally amongst all producers.

In other words, your goal is equality?Pars

[parsley]

Okay agstar, since you are niot quite sure what ideology would suit your purpose, let me ask you this,,,,,,,,

do you think agriculture in Canada should guarantee grain farmers' incomes, such as yourself, with tax dollars? Pars

[rockpile]

Sarah Parsley??? Tea anyone?

[chuckChuck]

Parsley. So I take it you don't seem to mind the type of American capitalists that fueled the financial crisis with risky investments, gave mortgages to those who couldn't afford them, etc. etc? Not to mention that they paid themselves fat bonuses after being bailed out? Is this the type of capitalism you aspire to?

[parsley]

chuck,If you do not want capitalism, what do you want agriculture based upon?

I am interested in what you need to make agriculture better for you.

Price guarantee? Income guarantee? Income equality?

What system is your ideal?

I am actually interested in your opinions. Pars

[parsley]

I'm not trying to hedge; yes, chuck, I do prefer capitalism.

It is not perfect, but I choose it compared to the alternatives.

Don't be evasive. This is not a trick question. Many of you say farmers should work together.

But what is it we would work together TOWARDS?

Isn't that a fair question?

(And don't avoid answering just because I don't look hot like Palin). LOL Pars

[parsley]

And Rockpile, nice to have you back. Been quite awhile, hasn't it. Pars

[agstar77]

The goal of government and industry is to reduce the number of ordinary producers, thus insuring ease of control and maximum profits. Who will earn those profits is the question? What is the difference in large corporate farms ,such as earth one and collectives in the old communist states? Neither situation appeals to me , but it seems that we are on that path. Farms like SF3 will make consolidation easier as they are amassing large tracts for their eventual owners. This has happened in the grain industry and the implement industry, why should farming be any different? Do we blame anyone for this situation or is it the best for everyone? Agriculture is one big poker game where the one with the most chips can force everyone else out of the game.

[parsley]

agstar, does consolidation meet YOUR goals?

For example, some people are interested in efficiency. Others is feeding the world. Oin making money. Others in a way of life. Others in owning all the land they can find to buy.

You don't seem to want the government reducing the number of farms, is this accurate?

If so, what role do you WANT to see gov't playing, in your operation? Any?

Are farmers better off WITH legislation or without it, according to what you would like?

Everybody jump in.

I ask, because I do not see coherent, nor consistent, nor relevent, nor well thought out policy coming forth from government.

They've practiced for years, but I have concluded, that farmers are much better off shedding them. But that is my observation.

What is yours? Pars

Do you WANT government

[parsley]

Another thing I observe, agstar, is that business is not sound business, if there is unsustainable spending and debt,and if taxpayer money is viewed as an entitlement. Pars

[agstar77]

Whether I care or not government will continue to be involved no matter what the political stripe. As the number of farms decrease more people are distanced from primary production. That means fewer people will relate to Ag. The infrastructure that now exists, roads schools, towns, etc will decay. I don't really know at what point efficiency decreases, but there is a law of diminishing returns. As a less intensive ag producer , I presume you would in favour of more farms using less inputs?

[parsley]

If farmers don't have enough backbone to express what they want and what they don't want farming to be, to become, certainly government will resort to their default...which is controlling farmers.

Why not? Look at the registered lobbyists who ask government to futher their ag goals. Hundreds of them.

Why do farmers shrug their shoulders and say the government will do it? What is the gain?

Even the questions on the farm census is an affront to decency let alone privacy, yet farmers shrug and comply. Conform. obey. Concede. Dither. Avoid. Hide under the bed.

I scratch my head. Pars

[SASKFARMER3]

I'm with you on this one!
It just amazes me how we have people lobbying for their business goals in farming. Furthering their profit from us yet as a group we cant agree on anything. AH their is the answer. See in France the farmers fall under a group where most if not all agree. Farmer 1st the rest second. In Canada its farmers last the rest 1st 2nd 3rd etc.
Till we all get on the same page the next generation will be doomed to work for the companies that are out there now, or new ones.