Goodale Commentary – You Can’t Manage What You Won’t Measure

[jdepape]

Tom:
The key to measuring is to first figure out a
benchmark. You can't figure out if things have
improved unless you know where you started.

And, it's a pity but Goodale doesn't get it. I have
argued with him about the true value of the single
desk - he will not even entertain the notion that
the CWB came with a huge cost - admin, higher
handling costs plus high marketing costs.

And if you refuse to acknowledge the way things
were, how can you ever truly measure where
you've gone?

Ironically, it's Goodale that "won't measure".

[wilagro]

It will be very easy to measure and assess the impact of "farmer input" with the new CWB. It will register as a big ZERO.

The fact that the government appoints ALL of the BOD has significance as we have lost ANY semblance of control over marketing and policy.

I can't ever see the government returning farmer appointed directors to the CWB so I say "piss on 'em" as selling through the present CWB is like having the "Harper government" through its lackeys control grain marketing and that would NOT be good.

[jdepape]

wilagro:

It will be easier than ever to measure the impact of “farmer input” with the new CWB.

If the CWB provides value and farmers make use of it, it will succeed.

If it fails to show value and fails to get farmer support, it will fail.

There’s no clearer measure of farmer impact.

[jdepape]

The Borg continues to contradict itself when arguing about market impact by farmers.

On the one hand they say that farmers don’t have market impact on their own – they need a mandatory selling agency like the old CWB for that. And, according to wilagro, the CWB needs farmers on the board to have any “semblance of control over marketing…” I take that to mean more of the same – we can’t influence the market without a single desk and we need farmers driving the boat.

On the other hand, the Borg will argue that in an open market, farmers will compete with each other, driving the price lower. Seems to me that that’s an argument that says individual farmers – acting in their own self interest – can impact the market.

If individual farmers can drive the price lower, it also stands that what they do can also support the price as well. Look at last year’s canola – in the spring we saw basis levels of about $14 over. Why? Deliveries were not enough to satisfy the demand. Starve the demand and price goes up.

Without the CWB control over wheat, farmers will now have a choice – sell wheat at harvest, or sell canola? And what individual farmers decide will have an impact on both. Watch for fall canola basis levels to be better than they have been historically.

And wilagro – one more contradiction. You’ve argued that the new CWB doesn’t have the market power of the old one. (And you’re right.) But now you say that “…the present CWB is like having the "Harper government" through its lackeys control grain marketing…”

The new CWB will not control grain marketing, lackeys or not. And that’s a good thing.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro,

There were only the years from 1999 to 2011 that grain growers Were directors.

Out of 63 years... less than 12.

I do not understand how the CEO of the CWB... Ian White who worked and was hired by the elected directors... has done any thing radical that would change significantly... how the CWB operates on a day to day basis. Same basic CWB staff... doing the same job.

In fact the CWB have far more opportunity to provide marketing benefits... outside the private grain trade... than it ever had before... as they can now arbitage Canola and pulses as well... help with producer cars on those grains now...

You seem to be able to measure the CWB pools as unworthy... why and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Cheers!

[wilagro]

Tom, you are so naive...Ian White was APPOINTED by the "Harper Government".

[jdepape]

...and approved by the farmer-elected board of directors.

[TOM4CWB]

Willy,

The 2008 hiring of White:

"White, 58, said he was approached about the job by a search firm, and said he was looking for a new challenge after eight years at Queensland Sugar, a not-for-profit exporting agency owned by sugar cane growers and millers.

His three-year appointment, which begins March 31, was supported by the CWB's board of directors, said Ken Ritter, the board's chairman, who declined to reveal White's salary."

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN3020228420080130?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandCha nnel=0

[wilagro]

Of course the CWB supported the appointment...they had NO OTHER CHOICE as the CWB is a federal government construct.

I presume you do know WHY they had to appoint a new CEO.

[TOM4CWB]

Willy,

You are revising history again.

I heard no outrage from 'your' side when the elected CWB Directors hired Ian... and would not even tell us how much he was being paid. Most folks would agree Ian worked without reservation to support the 'Single Desk'... I heard nothing to encourage me he was willing to back granting freedom and liberty from ships, vote, or 'buy-backs' that killed the CWB in the end.