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

[Jay-mo]

I have a feeling Jensend is right. The Cons don't really give a rip about the CWB monopoly. Minority, majority, makes no difference.
The Mulroney era is a bit before my time but did they not have back to back majority government? Why did the cons of the 80's not do something at that time?

[TOM4CWB]

Jay-mo,

The Conservatives did try to get barley out... Goodale ended that in 1993. Oats is out because the Conservatives took it out. No blocks on Oats going south... strange isn't it!!!!

Chuck, you say you care about the CWB?

You claim 'detractors' hate the CWB?

WRONG.

The fastest way to end the CWB... is to rely on the 'single desk' as the single asset of the CWB. THE SINGLE DESK will end. You know it...

As well, it seems, you would rather destroy the CWB... than have us prove you have been wrong all these years.

So

Chuckchuck,

Needing to make the CWB better... and forcing higher returns back to grain growers in the 'designated area' means I/we 'detractors' hate the CWB.

WOW.

That is CWB 'single desk' logic at its finest!

Cooperation... with a CWB 'single desk' spin... or a monopoly gun... just depends who you are and your financial position.

What are you so afraid of???

Chuckchuck,

BECAUSE of property rights... COnservative members vote to retain Supply management. Farmers bought and financed QUOTAS much like a Tim Hortons Franchise.

To say anyone can use the Tim Hortons name and same supplies... without buying in to the franachise... is illegal.

We made the laws in each Province... and guiding Federal legislation to grant supply managed farmers a franchise. We can not remove these assets and this franchise without fair and equitable compensation.

HENCE the CONSERVATIVE policy position on Supply managed farm products.

The CWB has no grower purchased quota... the only franchise granted is that of the grain industry over 'designated area' wheat and barley growers!

SO...

Should compensation be granted the multi-nationals and other grain handlers for allowing CWB Marketing CHoice???

I do not believe anyone thinks a reward to the multi-nationals for ending the CWB 'single desk' is or would be appropriate; for loosing the franchise over 'designated area' grain growers!

[chuckChuck]

Jdepape.

Where is your evidence that the CWB dosen't earn premiums in a single desk pooled price environment?

What methodology do you suggest for fairly comparing CWB pooled returns in a single desk environment versus the prices in an open market without the single desk?

What is the net value advantage of the larger domestic usage in the US market for US producers?

What is the differences in handling and transportation costs in the subsidized US system versus the Canadian system?

How do net returns to the pool compare from Iraq, Mexico, Sri Lanka, China, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, Bangladesh, Canada and the US?

[charliep]

Interesting questions. Perhaps you can explain the annual report
performance measure used in the CWB annual reports. Who generates
these numbers? If it is the operations side, what process does the
board of directors use to verify their accuracy? After a reasonable
amount of time, why is this information not available at least in an
aggregated form so farmer stakeholders can look at them for
themselves and come to their own conclusions.

I will note that USDA has extremely good price surveys and data
capture. Some is left over requirements from the loan deficiency
payments but still still done none the less. In Canada, price signals
are considered bad and ignorace bliss. Not sure why.

[charliep]

Page 45 if you need to check on what I am referring to. Never understood these numbers/why relevant to farmers.

[URL="http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/about/investor/annual/pdf/08-09/2008-09_annual-report.pdf"]annual report[/URL]

[charliep]

chuckchuck

Your last sentence comes close to describing a returns to pool table and the sales plan. Interesting.

[charliep]

For your interest, here is a website (Montana Wheat and Barley
Committee) that will go a long ways to answering your questions
about US prices. Note the historical price series - you will have to
look.

[URL="http://wbc.agr.mt.gov/"]montana prices[/URL]

On your question on rail costs, checked a couple and seemed to
be in the 90 cent (100 car spot unit train) to about $1.20/bu
(single car) Montana to PNW. As highlighted by John, elevations
and terminal costs are much cheaper. Should do more work but
interesting the difference between Portland fob price and Montana
elevator bids is about $1.50/bushel. Not that much different than
Canada.

[charliep]

I should correct myself. I am comparing US elevator bid to a US FOB
price (loaded boat). The CWB deductions are prairie elevator to instore
west coast terminal. An interesting question is how the CWB uses of
your money to pay vessel loading costs at the west coast?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

I not rail frieght from central Alberta... (much like Montana)... is $34/t... minus at least 6/t for multi-spot loading at the elevator which is past back to my farm.

$28/t... (75 cents per bushel) is a far cry from $1.20/US per bushel.

The CWB SHOULD be able to beat PNW US DNS without any excuses... hands down if the claim that we have better quality holds any truth to it at all.

What a Paradox the CWB has got itself into.

Paying 'designated area' growers $9/bu... for $12 wheat.

[jdepape]

chuckChuck:

First – throwing new questions at me without addressing mine isn’t what I consider to be “rebuttal and informed discussion”. Rebuttal requires you address an argument already presented, not counter with a different topic; that's deflection and avoidance.

Be that as it may, I will address your items that relate to my earlier comments – but then I expect you to “rebut” mine.

You ask: <b>Where is your evidence that the CWB dosen't earn premiums in a single desk pooled price environment? </b>

My approach to CWB premiums has always been to argue that IF they get premiums, it is for reasons other than the single desk. But also there is no evidence of premiums – quite the opposite.

Talk to the buyers - they will tell you that they don't pay premiums for Canadian wheat because of the single desk.

When I look at CWB performance, I look at the cost side of the equation too. The CWB reported that in 08-09 it got premiums on wheat amounting to $6.65/tonne on every tonne sold. The Federal Grain Monitor data shows that in that same year, the CWB “cost” was $10.14/tonne. This is a number the CWB provides the Monitor – the CWB insisted that it would provide this information rather than have the Monitor pull it out of other reports or estimates – it includes CWB administration costs plus direct marketing costs. So if you’re going to take issue with it, talk to the CWB.

So, according to the CWB, it cost 10.14 to get a premium of 6.65. The net is negative $3.49. This does not include the increased cost of handling over what the non-CWB markets charge. That’s a different argument we can have at another time.

The other way to look at it is to look at the price the CWB got in comparison to "the market" over the crop year. I can’t speak for you, but if I’m going to hire someone to market my grain for me, I expect them to get me better than average prices. When you compare the final pool return to whatever relevant market you want, it is lower than the crop year average for the crop year. In fact, if you compare CWB farmgate returns to US prices over a crop year, in most years <b>the CWB pool return is lower than the lowest US price of the year</b> and never is it much higher than the lowest US price. The US farmer can sell his whole crop at the lowest price of the year and still get a better price than you through the CWB.

Then start adding up the added cost of on farm storage, interest, etc because you had to store CWB grain longer; plus the added interest because you weren’t paid until months later.

On a net basis, the CWB’s performance (premium) is negative and the more things you include in the analysis, the more negative it becomes. Put another way, the CWB is going to have to come up with much, much larger premiums than they are currently reporting for you as a farmer to get a net premium.

Question back at you: Where is your evidence that the CWB does earn premiums?

[TOM4CWB]

DePape,

You must be talking 'Eskimo' AGAIN!

Trust and Obey... there is no other way... to be happy in the Wheat Board... than to trust and obey.

How dare you question GOD.

[stubblejumper]

depape why are you posting the election is over.

[gregpet]

Chuck how much time do you need to answer the questions? Are you actually trying to find verifiable facts to backup any opinions you have? That would be a change.

[TOM4CWB]

Stubble,

In case you missed it... the CWB affects many of our families and farms 24/7/365.

The largest factor in lost opportunity... by farm... affecting every crop I market... is the 'elephant' in my Igloo.

You may not WANT to talk about this elephant... but knowing 'the elephant is in our room' is the first step to resolving the problems it causes...!

[cropduster]

Stubble...he`s not as SHALLOW as you that`s why!!