Pacific Trade Alliance

[bduke]

Parsley... IMHO the process of change is difficult for many to risk.

The results are most often embraced.... although our Supply Management
cost plus is unusual.

The profitability of the efficient has become capitalized in quota values.

Ironically, the proponents of the establishment of SM argued this
program would ensure sustainability of smaller dairy and feather farms.

I recall the doomsday voices of Canada's wine industry when the USFTA
was being established.

II think it was Dr Sandy Warley who respond to the wine lobby anti trade
position "what are they protecting,..Chateau Welland Canal?".

Canada now has a wine industry far evolved from Baby Duck!

I agree that change is real.... and inevitable.

The wise change after the bleeding edge... and before the bandwagon.

Bill

[parsley]

Re profitability of the efficient? Or perhaps the
profitability of the political lobbyist. The
latter,iover the long term, is the antithesis of
efficiency and results in demise. I would counter
it is the profitability of the inefficient. LOL.

[parsley]

And Will, I do not want artificially stimulated milk.
new Zealand has none Nor do I want carragean
in my cream, which is evidence if the creep factor
in Canada. But hurt will be real. Pars

[bduke]

Parsley... My understanding from a few years ago is the milk, poultry and
egg prices are set basis average costs and average productivity plus a profit.

Therefore it is the above average producers that pay greatly for quotas to
gain market access for greater production.

This has resulted in larger and very modern facilities, but has also practically
eliminated the small enterprises.

The horrendous value they pay for quota... a license to sell a wholesome
product ffs... is their biggest investment.

The powerful lobby effectively protects this licensing value, which should be
illegal in an open economy.

BTW Quebec is overweight in their market share of dairy.... and the Prairies
are underweight.

Politics perhaps!

Bill

[parsley]

If you consider the inevitable decimation of their
falsepaper-assets, as part of their long term
planning , as a opposed to longterm sustainability
based on sound, fair , COMPETITIVE
economics, doesnt efficiency take on a whole
new meaning?

Any farmer who bases their industry on ass-
kissing and favoritism, and conniving, is bound to
fail

If the amount of bushels or the amount of
butterfat or the amount of dollars are made
efficient only until doomsday 2013, is that
efficiency? Or can the hungry barncat quickly
outpace the pampered tomcat. LOL.

Bottom line: Does competition better foster
efficiency? Pars.

[bduke]

Parsley... Science and subsidies are synergetic in agriculture because risk
is hugely mitigated.

Guaranteed profitability greatly enhances the adoption of technology, the
affordability of superior genetics, the improvement of facilities, and the
speed of expansion.

Competition fosters fairer efficiency, but not necessarily greater efficiency.

If we compare performance of olympic athletes, they with better training,
newest technology, and state of the art nutrition tend to be the medalists.

They are also the most subsidized.

In this case the pampered tomcats do out perform we barn cats...
unfortunately.

BTW .. wheat yields in the world are also highest where the prices have the
greatest support. Wheat Belly wheat albeit.

Therefore the SM lobby is focussed on protecting their quotas... their
greatest investment.

The unfairness of this scam is the regulated higher cost to consumers, the
prohibited license cost which greatly restricts access, the windfall for they
selling quotas, and the unrestricted use of "regulated profits" to out bid
other farmers for land and equipment.

Bottom line is competition fosters fairer production, fairer access and fairer
pricing.

Bill

[grassfarmer]

bduke, "This has resulted in larger and very modern
facilities, but has also practically eliminated the small
enterprises."
That is a false statement with regard to the dairy
sector. Depends what you call "small" I suppose. The
dairy sector is the only one in Canadian agriculture
where a family can make a good living of 1/4 section.
Plenty of 70 cow dairies make very good incomes off
this type of land base. Often the farm family is also
maintaining a second household (employee) off their
70 cow, quarter section operation. In contrast many
beef producers have 150 cows on many quarters
and need both themselves and their wives to work off
farm to support the financial hobby that is their
ranch. Posters on this forum are quick to scoff at the
"small" grain farmers that only have 10 quarters or
less.
Sure there are some bigger operators in the dairy
sector - I know of two 500 cow operations but I
would suggest that in fact there are a bigger
proportion of profitable, small scale farms in the
dairy sector than in any other.

[ASRG]

The bottom line is does the government pay the farmer for taking his property (quota)?

The argument the "original" farmer got it for nothing or next to nothing, really doesn't wash? How many of us are sitting on land worth $ millions that was bought for $160? Would you take $160 for your quarter section?
When the government starts stealing property, where does it end?

The dairy industry evolved in Canada to make sure there was a secure, safe supply. You might not like it but that was the government of the days' policy.....and don't try to blame it all on the Liberals....Brian Mulrooney was one of the staunchest defenders of supply management we'll ever see!

Personally I don't mind paying $1.87 for a liter of good safe milk or $4 for a pound of butter. I know they were produced in a good clean environment with no BST hormone!

Now I might think different if I had ten kids or something, but when a beer in the bar is $5.....how can I complain about paying $1.87 for a liter of milk?

[bduke]

Grassfarmer.... Of course the perspective of "small" is relevant.

There are empty 30 to 40 cow barns in our area...and few Harvestors
now being used for feeding beef cattle.

The quotas from these farms are consolidated into larger operations.

The farmers selling the quotas bid up the price of farmland and changed
their operations.

Absolutely counter to the original argument for SM.

ASRG... I have not been suggesting an immediate elimination of quotas,
simply it is past time to wind down these programs.

The import tariffs could easily be ratcheted down over 10 years... as was
done in many of the tariffs under NAFTA .

For example.. the 300% tariff on imported cheese could be reduced by
10% per year.

This allows for adjustment and paying off of quotas... it also ratchets
down the value of quotas.

Current non sensical tariffication is abetting an increase in quota bids.

The import duties on US autos were reduced this way... and we still have
an auto industry.

BTW I bet you can't buy four glasses of milk in a bar for $1.87.

Bill

[bduke]

Grassfarmer and ASRG... you both seem comfortable with Supply Management.

Please explain to me why the value of the license ..i.e.quota... being of greater
cost than the herd/flock and facilities to produce an SM product is acceptable
to you?

Especially when the products are normally not illegal, immoral nor unsafe.

Bill