Is the Video Working! You bet your ASS it is!

[SASKFARMER3]

What do most think of the impact one little video has done. The CWB is in Damage control. But their like the Mafia so all should Cheer very carefully because they will retaliate and retaliate big time.
But as a Farmer I feel this has had a greater impact on ending the CWB than anything ever tried.
Years ago I said the End of the CWB will happen thanks to the Internet. We farmers have information at our hands within seconds of it happening. I know it poured for instance in Parana last night probably good for 20 days. Under the old way this information wouldn't be made available for years.
Under the CWB system farmers were in the dark trust us system. We unfortunately trusted them. Lost Billions but trusted them.
Farmers should also remember who also cost us the Liberanos and DPers. They kept this charade going.
Simply Boys keep up the fight I think I see a crack forming in the mighty (in their own minds) CWB.

[chuckChuck]

As I have found with most CWB haters, this video prefers to make their points when there is little chance for a rebuttal and informed discussion.

There can be no doubt the open market is perfect.

As far as a lack of freedom and equitable policy. Why do many CWB haters vote for a Conservative government that supports supply managed marketing Boards in Dairy and Poultry?

Why do poultry and dairy farmers in this country get the protection of cost of production and price setting marketing boards?

[JDGreen]

yuckyuck .. Brain in gear and then open mouth. Who do you suggest we would vote for that would dare stand up to Quebec and its SUPPLY managed sector. There is none so your point is mute. Secondly why do so many board supporters compare the CWB to supply management?? Is it ignorance or just one of the last straws to grasp in rebuttal. The 2 systems are not comparable IMO.

[LWeber]

You can spin this any way you like Chuckchuck. For all your questions, there is a political answer. Don't mix politics with financial returns to a farmer.

Left wing whacks crack me up. If I expose fertilizer prices for gouging farmers with evidence – that’s ok. If I expose canola crushers for taking inordinate margins – with evidence – that’s ok.

If I expose the CWB for failing farmers – with evidence - it becomes there is Weber trying to force his ideology on farmers.

A farmer getting what is rightfully theirs is what this is about for me.

Not innuendo, mantra and ideology.

Money. Money that farmers should have. The system is failing everyone should they wish to open their eyes.

Try speaking to a group of potential farmers in University once and see what their concerns are. This debate is polarized within demographics and political beliefs.

It won’t change as this Agriculture Minister has recently declared that the CWB is “doing a good job”. He has no facts to back that up and as one video suggests – has no balls.

Here is your chance for “a rebuttal and informed discussion”.

Do you think that the CWB is capable of silencing any critics and would they do so to further their cause?

I look forward to your answer.

[Fransisco]

"little chance for a rebuttal and informed discussion" LOL! That's a good one. Just about snorted the morning coffee out of my nose there.

Chuck chuck, the comment section on the video is wide open as long as you don't swear. And what is stopping the freedom hating boardies from making their own video? Nothing! In fact they've already made one and its a flop.

Compare the CWB monitor website to the CWB alliance one. Again the one in favour of more freedom and accountability has a wide open comment policy. The Freedom hating one has none.

And what the heck is Agriville? You guys have had all sorts of opportunity to rebutt anything and everything and you never do. There's never any links, there's never any in the farmers pocket numbers. Its all wheat board good, free market bad, ugg, ugg.

Your most eloquent spokesman is Burbert for crying out load.

[jensend]

financial returns to farmers are all about politics. the cwb should go, along with supply management and subsidies like crop insurance. if you figure the feds and provinces pay 60% of crop insurance premiums and the admin costs a 5,000 acre farm gets how big a subsidy? in the hundred thousand range or better? be careful what you wish for. canadian farmers aren't squeaky clean when it comes to govt. support.

[parsley]

"financial returns to farmers are all about politics."

That's the reality when you marry subsidies.

A few Western farmers cannot compete with hordes of Eastern voters.

Politicians listen to numbers. Pars

[silverback]

That is a great idea chuck, I vote we eliminate the supply management gravy train as well as the cwb.

Is that the best you got? There is not one party that will go on record to eliminate the supply mgmt system and you blame the conservatives? Who did originate the supply mgmt system anyway?

[jdepape]

chuckChuck:
"...when there is little chance for a rebuttal and informed discussion"

I have to say with all due respect and frustration, that I have placed in front of you many, many issues that you and others have failed to "rebut" in the interests of "informed discussion".

The CWB Monitor was aimed at providing information (facts) that the CWB chooses to hold back from farmers in order to stimulate discussion. Many of the articles were placed here on Agriville by myself and others - yet the only response from the Borg was attempts at derision with no facts to back it up.

Come on chuckChuck - roll up yer sleeves - poke some holes in the CWB Monitor articles. SHOW ME what the CWB is really about, according to chuckChuck.

Let's get some meaningful "informed discussion" going here. You and me. Right here, right now.

[Kodiak]

I think you're just going to continue to be frustrated John. Unless there is an epiphany at the CWB, you won't get a rebutal with facts or even a rudimentary discusion on what the pertinent facts are. One thing is evident - they are smart enough to know when they have been out-smarted and therefore they won't engage in the discussion you want to have. As ususal, they will resort to fear mongering.

I agree with others on this discussion board. The CWB is losing so badly because of its attitude to farmers and its pathetic performance, its just a matter of time until there is enough critical mass necessary to break its political stranglehold. I'm not sure the current Minister is up to the task of recognizing when that is, but the next one might. We can only hope.

[jdepape]

Here, chuckChuck - I'll give you something to go on, from my blog:


Single desk candidates and others have made a number of statements to strike fear in the hearts of voters. Here are some of those statements along with my comments.

<b>Without the CWB, farmers would be forced to market their grain directly to offshore buyers.</b>

Why would farmers be forced to market their wheat directly to offshore buyers when there are companies already set up to compete for this business? Do canola growers sell canola to, say Showa, in Japan? Farmers would market wheat the same way they market anything else.

<b>A voluntary CWB would be in direct competition with the grain companies that it would rely on to ship its grain. Why would they handle the CWB grain and not their own?</b>

Grain handling is a fixed cost business and there is over capacity. CWB tenders have shown what grain companies will do to get extra volume – they discount their fees by as much as $20/tonne. If the CWB approached a grain company with the support of farmers representing a large amount of grain, the CWB could negotiate very attractive handling terms. Grain companies would work hard to get and then keep a sizable customer like that.

<b>A dual market won’t work.</b>

I think to most people, a dual market is one where farmers are free to choose who they sell to, including the CWB. In a dual market the CWB would not have a monopoly, or its single desk; it would be a participant in the market providing whatever value it can for producers. For example, I have shown in an earlier commentary that only about 17% of Western Canadian farmers deal with the CWB on barley, either malt or feed (and that includes 100% of all the malt barley). In a dual market, if the CWB dealt with even 10% of all farmers on barley, this should be considered a success. It would tell me that 10% of all farmers find value in the CWB offering. The CWB doesn’t need to handle everything to be considered a success.

On its website, the CWB tries to explain how a dual market won’t work by giving examples from the 1930’s. (http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/hot/choice/myth/) These examples all depict a fixed price pool; I showed earlier that a basis priced pool would allow the CWB to compete very well.

<b>The dual market experience in Australia shows a dual market won’t work here.</b>

Quite the contrary. In the first year after losing the single desk, AWB acquired over 25% of the Australian 08-09 wheat crop. It’s pooling activities attracted 2.7 million tonnes while its “Grain Marketing” business unit acquired a further 3.4 million tonnes. I understand that some of the private companies also provide a pooling option. Pooling successfully offered alongside the “open market”. Go figure.

<b>Getting rid of the single desk will be the end of the CWB.</b>

The single desk represents forced participation. In a dual market, with voluntary farmer support, the CWB could be very effective marketer - as long as its open to doing things a bit differently. A separate organization could be formed to address policy issues on behalf of the industry, including farmers (but voluntary), much like the Canola Council of Canada does for canola.

<b>The CWB risk management program has a lower cost than for non-CWB crops.</b>

Truth of the matter is that the open market system, including competition and the use of futures has been proven to be a much lower cost system (not just here - anywhere in the world). For example, in 2008-09, Western Canadian average “net-backs” (charges that cover handling, cleaning, CWB expenses, risk management, etc - excluding freight) were reported as:

CWRS = $28.91
Durum = $48.47
Canola = $5.65

The reasons canola is lower include competition and the lack of CWB costs. (These net-backs cover all relevant costs including risk management.)

<b>Working together, marketing through the single desk gets farmers better prices.</b>

Although it’s nice to think this, and intuitively this makes sense, it is not supported by evidence. Even if it was able to get premiums, we have shown that the real costs and lost opportunities are much larger, presenting farmers with a net loss position. More streamlined models need to be considered but the majority of the CWB board of directors cling onto the status quo.

<b>The CWB does not distort markets.</b>

This is just wrong. Poor farmgate cash flow forces marketing actions in other crops that would not occur if the CWB crops were more responsive to market signals. The way the CWB has handled feed barley exports for the last four years has artificially kept the price of feed barley low in Western Canada. Poorer net returns on wheat due to high costs and less-than-average prices contribute to increased acres of other crops, pressuring prices lower due to increased supply. Canada also has a smaller processing industry because of the single desk.

<b>Without the CWB, the US border will get slammed shut to Canadian wheat because there will be lines of trucks hauling south.</b>

The truth of the matter is that all the trade challenges brought forward by the US have been against the CWB – not import of Canadian wheat. (One challenge actually stated it was on wheat from Western Canada, not eastern Canada.) Canada enjoys an excellent trading relationship with the US on all sorts of other agricultural commodities; corn and soybeans coming from the US into Canada; canola, flax and oats going from Canada to the US. In fact the US imports more oats from Canada than it grows domestically. None of this trading activity has been hampered by trade actions – because none of these activities involve the CWB.

Your turn, chuckChuck.

[riders2010]

Why don't the conservatives end it right now? simple question

[jdepape]

simple answer - minority government

[jensend]

more correct answer - they don't give a rip. harper is more concerned about getting a majority, or even maintaining his position as leader, than he is about any particular issue. like any successful politician he is 95% cynicism and 5% idealism.

[riders2010]

and we think the liberals and ndp would have caused an election over this issue? Let's see now not important enough for Conservatives, not for Liberals and not for Ndp. Wow we really have a selection there don't we!