how to vote for a voluntary CWB

[jdepape]

If you look at the CWB website, it will tell you – to the second – how much time you have left to submit your plebiscite ballot. As I write this it says 11 days, 11 hours, 39 minutes and 12 seconds. So those farmers that have yet to decide what to do, there's still time.

The plebiscite question is quite straight forward - pick A or B:

A) I wish to maintain the ability to market all wheat, with the continuing exception of feed wheat sold domestically, through the CWB single-desk system.

B) I wish to remove the single-desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat through an open market system.

There are the same options on barley.

Unfortunately, these two options don't explicitly include a voluntary CWB option. Even so, the CWB's own annual producer survey includes a question that offers a voluntary CWB as an option. In the most recent survey released this spring, the CWB asked the question (with results in brackets):

"If you had to choose between three different approaches to marketing wheat, which of the following would you prefer?"

A Solely CWB (40%)
B Dual marketing (45%)
C Open market (13%)

On barley, the results were similar:

"If you had to choose between three different approaches to marketing barley, which of the following would you prefer?"

A Solely CWB (29%)
B Dual marketing (40%)
C Open market (22%)

Anyone I've talked to about this understands “dual marketing” means you can sell your grain to anyone you like, including to the CWB. It's obvious that this means that the CWB would be an option - a voluntary option. It does not mean – as the CWB suggests – that the CWB has its single desk in a completely open market. I agree with them when they say that that's impossible (quite ridiculous to even suggest it, actually); but an open market with a voluntary CWB is clearly possible – and that is what most people understand to be a “dual market”, regardless of what the CWB says.

The CWB survey shows 45% of farmers support a dual market in wheat and 40% in barley; in other words, they support a voluntary CWB. These are not insignificant numbers. A very large proportion of farmers support the removal of the single desk if the CWB (or whatever it becomes) is voluntary. This compares with 40% and 29% for wheat and barley respectively supporting the single desk when a voluntary CWB is an option. (Those supporting Option C, an open market, (13% and 22% respectively) also support the removal of the single desk. All in all, when presented with reasonable and realistic options, around 60% opt for the removal of the single desk.)

So what gives with the plebiscite question that doesn't give that option, even though the CWB knows that so many farmers would support it? It's simple; those running the CWB don't like the idea of a voluntary CWB and are doing everything they can to discredit the idea. But since it's pretty clear that that is the direction we are going, it would make sense to gauge farmer's real interest.

How do I vote if I support a voluntary CWB?

Although I've said that it's a waste of time because it's non-binding, I have received emails and calls from people saying "I really feel like I should vote – but I don't like the options – CWB or no CWB."

If you really think you should vote but prefer to see a "voluntary CWB", vote for the only one of the two options that would allow that; a voluntary CWB fits in an open market because it would not have a single desk.

So if you feel compelled to vote, choose:

B) I wish to remove the single-desk marketing system from the CWB and sell all wheat (and barley) through an open market system.
You still have 11 days – or thereabouts.

Of course you could still not vote or send your ballot to your MP or to Minister Ritz. There are many ways to express your position against the single desk.

[agstar77]

How did you vote?

[Fransisco]

I voted Conservative.

[jdepape]

I didn't.
Wouldn't even if I could.
(I don't grow the right stuff.)

[malleefarmer]

dual market to me means some sort of regulation or a limit on numbers of buyers or liscencing system.

we had it in australia and all it did was provide a job for govt bureaucrats issueing and monitoring liscence, was messy but provided transition into open market

[agstar77]

In other words you have no skin in the game, very interesting.

[Hopperbin]

Oh agstar if you want skin then the cwb is sunk.

[Fransisco]

What makes you think farmers are the only ones with "skin" in the game?

[jdepape]

According to Investopedia, "Skin In The Game" is
a term coined by renowned investor Warren
Buffett referring to a situation in which high-
ranking insiders use their own money to buy
stock in the company they are running.  The idea
is to ensure that corporations are managed by
like-minded individuals who share a stake in the
company. Executives can talk all they want, but
the best vote of confidence is putting one's own
money on the line just like outside investors.

Agstar:  I think the "game" to which you refer is
the Western Canadian grain business.  By the
definition above, CWB senior managers don't
have any skin in the game, do they?  Do you
disregard CWB managers' views too?

Oh yeah - for what it's worth, I may not be a
farmer, but according to Warren Buffet, I do have
skin in the game.

[agstar77]

So if you are an insider , do you stand to make more when the open market takes over?

[checking]

If he was an average insider with no wish to be anything but an average insider like you wanting no opportunity to be anything but an average farmer with the CWB, then I suspect you have your answer.

[silverback]

Not once have I ever heard some of you guys admit that freedom of choice is a good thing.

The only thing that shines through time and again is envy.

The thought that someone else might be able to make just one penny more than you just drives you crazy. It doesn't matter if they are farmers, investors, or consultants, nobody deserves to be paid for their work more than you are given for yours.

(But you would gladly pay mr. oberg more for his work lately if you could)

[Fransisco]

Think about the premise of agstars question. That the only way someone else can make money is at his expense.

While it is sometimes the case that you get ripped off, that is certainly not the norm when it comes to business. Generally speaking, in an open economy, if two parties can't come to some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement the deal doesn't happen.

The premise in agstars question is rooted in the fallacy of the zero sum game. The notion that wealth is a fixed number, that there is no possible way that it can be created or grow. That all you can do is rearrange the pieces. If that were true we'd all still be living in caves.

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

The proof of Prosperity in the increase of productivity...is in the examples of: Canola, Corn, Soybeans...

Growing demand... growing supplies... higher prices paid for even larger volumes... builds even more demand if the promise of supply increasing looks likely. Demand led consumption... brings Higher Prices...'more makes more'

This is the opposite of the CWB Directors Flaman 8 etc. whos' view of economic theory... is that 'less makes more'. This is socialism... that to be wealthy...that 'sharing' (ie. the forced taking of someone elses wealth is required.

[jdepape]

If by "insider" you mean I am an executive within
a company I guess I am - I own the company.

Do I stand to make more in a market without the
single desk?  That depends solely on me.  And I
like it that way; I believe there will be greater
opportunities for anyone who can create value in
the new environment.

I believe the removal of the single desk will do
two fundamental things.  One, it will open the
market to more competition which will minimize
waste and unnecessary costs, increasing wealth
creation potential for all involved.  And two, it will
enable entrepreneurs to build businesses that
create wealth for more than themselves.  
Businesses that will hire people and use the
services of other local businesses.

(We'll see more companies like Pizzey's Milling.  
They started their flax milling business on the
family farm near Angusville MB and when they
sold it, they were employing 50 local people.)

Farmers will be able to make marketing and
sales decisions that make sense for themselves
and for their benefit (one size does not fit all in
grain marketing).  Those that are uncomfortable
with marketing will be able to hire someone to do
it or help them - and they will have a number of
companies to choose from. (and I'll bet that
hiring a marketing partner will cost less than the
CWB does - and there's a better than even
chance that they'll do a more effective job for
each individual farm.)

The best thing about the removal of the single
desk is that those of us that want to build
something will no longer be dragged down by the
view that nobody should get more than anyone
else.  This drive to equality is really a drive to
mediocrity (or worse).

Agstar - I don't know you but from your posts 
here it appears you belong to a group I call The
Brotherhood of the Shrinking Pie; by clinging onto
this idea of "one-for-all" you are actually reducing
the industry's ability to create wealth in Western
Canada.  But not to worry - even if you don't see
opportunity in this change, you too will gain.