The PRO, how will we miss it?

[gregpet]

Also chuck a peer reviewed study and a simple study paid for by the CWB are not the same. Peer reviewed
means their facts were scrutinized. The CWB studies were not scrutinized. Think that matters. Funny how you
worry about the poor and yet claim the CWb sells for a premium. Isn't that a contradiction?

[lakenheath]

chuckchuck is living proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. He has been exposed to left-wing propaganda and is now trying to apply this wealth of information to the real world. It is hard to comprehend how foolish he speaks.

Typically this type of thing works. You study, become exposed, research, question and then apply your knowledge.

But when you study false information, emerse yourself with fear mongers, completely skip the research and questioning part, then you get the kind of information posted by chuckchuck and his type.

p.s.

Stewart Wells, the 1950's called and they would like their ideologies back.

[chuckChuck]

lakenheath. Your hilarious rhetoric is hardly worth responding to.

When you are talking about the 1950s are you talking about supply management for dairy and poultry? State protected, supply management, cost of production formulas. Sounds like a command economy like the former soviet union to me. All supported by your beloved Conservatives. You must be a commie if you voted Con! LOL

[jdepape]

chuckChuck:

I discredit work that deserves to be discredited. I surely hope you agree that when an academic steals (plagiarizes) the work of someone else, that act itself discredits the academic. The fact that you still defend them as credible even after knowing that they cheat is amazing to me.

Agreed – “ag economists have done a whole lot more research on a wide variety of marketing and transportation issues” than I have. In that same vein, I have done a whole lot more “actual” hands-on grain marketing than they have. Reality trumps theory every time.

Concern over raising the cost of grain-based foods to consumers (which is what I talked about) is not at all the same things as concern about domestic grain prices (to farmers). A more efficient system than what we have now will lower the price to end-users and raise the price to farmers.

“With all the trade challenges to wheat in the US why was it never proven that the CWB was dumping? If the core of your argument is that the CWB is selling at lower prices why was this never brought to light in the US market?”

More blind ideology. Arguing that the CWB does not get premiums (my argument) is not the same as saying the CWB gets “lower prices” (although I know that they often do). The CWB system is bloated and inefficient. It needs to get premiums just to pay for its inefficiency – and that doesn’t happen.

Premiums reported by the CWB – about $6.00 a tonne.

Marketing costs reported by the CWB – about $10.50 a tonne.

Other inefficiencies (there are plenty) – put a number on it. You don’t need an economist to do the math for you.

Using these <b>real</b> numbers - and any other <b>real</b> numbers you want to use - please tell me how you see the CWB adding to your profitability?

[generaleyes]

chukChuk is the only one on this thread that seems to have a good argument and the only one that is of any interest to read. And I don't even agree with him/her!! Thank you chukChuk!