CWB Ships,

[TOM4CWB]

1. Built in China;

2. Cost $65m or our 2 ships;

3. All 'designated area' growers must pay for these ships over the next 4 years at $1/t (one half a percent) over entire CWB marketing tonnes during these 4 years;

4. I is projected to take 8, EIGHT years to pay for these ships!


5. CWB bound to a shipping pool of 8 ships... managed by another entity (Seaway Marine).


6. CWB OWNS 2 of the 8 ships...

7. Cost now $70-75m for laker freight/year... this new venture may save the CWB pool (grain growers) $10m/year or 15 percent return on investment.

Question:

What happens when the CWB 'single desk' monopoly ends?

Info from CWB broadcast on www.cwb.ca

[blackpowder]

Their strategy might also include some terminal ownership.

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie,

It should be noted that there will not be one cent of actual revenue from these ships... until after 8 years...

And that there is no net benefit to any grain grower in Western Sk. or Alberta!

So 3 of the NFU Organic CWB directors... who do not use the seaway lakers and have dual marketing by their own directive... vote to lock my farm into this insane scheme that increases my costs and tries to STOP dual marketing for becoming an option for our farms???!

HOW is this possible?

[TOM4CWB]

Blackpowder,

The CWB said they can NOT OWN bricks and mortar... only movable property!

Coming Soon; are we to own Panamax ships, Locomotives and trucks...?

Will we lease the terminals if we can't buy them?

[DogPatch]

Whats the big deal? Richardson's, Pattersons, Cargill etc all own a fleet of lakers, terminals, inland grain elevators, chem sheds, barges etc...... Everytime you haul grain to them, you're paying for their infrastructure. Why aren't you complaining about them?

A real double standard I think.....

[DogPatch]

an 8 year payout isn't bad... how long does it take to payout a combine, or a chunk of land? BE HONEST now.

[TOM4CWB]

OK dogpatch...

Clear who you work for...

Respect my property rights? NOT.

The monkeys are running the zoo.

THere I go... TalkingEskimo... AGAIN!

[TFLN]

Difference is Dogpatch - the grain companies share holders made the decision collectively to invest in infrastructure. We farmers aka shareholders in the CWB were not asked/consulted.

[Fransisco]

I'm pretty sure that none of the grain companies own any lakers. Paterson used to, but I think got rid of them in '02.

[blackpowder]

Parsley, would you be kind enough to place the link of the Andrew Reed Paper here?

Dogpatch, I would ask you to read this paper please.
Of course we don't have to agree with this paper, but it better explains how I feel about the capitalism to socialism transition, than I can.
I don't think I need a doctorate to understand the risks to economic and technological advancement posed by unchecked socialism.
Of course on the surface expansion of "state" enterprise into free enterprise appears no different.
But of course it's completely different.
Imagine if you will applying the decision making process used in any state run agency to your own farm business.
You may inevitably conclude it would be a sh@t show.
It is I believe this decision making process that poses a large risk to progress.
Therefore I believe, you can never compare successful 100 yr old corps. to a state run agency.
No more than you can compare the issues in health and education to this 'business only' discussion.

[Burbert]

Directors of the CWB, made a decision on
this one, as they are elected and paid to
do. DAAAAAAAAAAA! Er do ya think that
Comedian farmers, should be consulted each
and every time a decision is required.
THATS WHY THEY WERE ELECTED TO MAKE THE
TOUGH DECISIONS, then make them work!!

[parsley]

Historic Precedent with Modern Relevance?
The Effect of Crisis and Government Intervention On Canadian Prairie Agriculture.<p></p>
<p><strong>[URL="http://fare.uoguelph.ca/files/Andrew%20Reed%20paper.pdf"](Andrew N.Reed)[/URL]</strong></p>