Free trade, financially helping the imports of Irish cattle in the 70's, lowering standards on corn imports when barley hit $3/bus, CWB. AFSC. FCC, Growing Forward, Agristability,,,,when the big push was on to diversify into tourism, etc.....because farmers, in many cases, couldn't make it farming!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ag Ministers Seal Your Doom
Collapse
Logging in...
Welcome to Agriville! You need to login to post messages in the Agriville chat forums. Please login below.
X
-
One thing I will highlight is some of the comments about livestock and grain price insurance programs and potential to provide coverage in this area. Alberta has lead the way with CPIP (cattle price insurance program) and HPIP (hog price insurance). Livestock guys will comment on their experience. Alberta has the Spring Price Endorsement which has some flaws (time between when coverage prices are established, premiums are calculated and farmer participation decisions are made) but has potential to be modified similar to the livestock products.
An area I would follow and if you support, provide input to your provincial governments.
Comment
-
Charlie: The so called "cattle insurance program" for cow/calf producers was a complete joke? The banks who had guys by the balls were all for it but in reality it was a complete joke?
Like 30 cents below the market? Yea....good deal....pay the premium so you can get the shaft! Waste of time....idiot government program...for the bankers!
Comment
-
I don't perceive free trade or lowering limits on corn as a cheap food policy. How can you say that opening up your markets to the world is a "cheap" food policy. It is good business to have open borders with the world. The alternative is closed borders, less trade, less farmers but the handful left are more profitable and I would agree that this could be called a "expensive" food policy. I don't see how Agstability, FCC, etc are resulting in a cheap food policy...maybe a higher taxation policy.
Comment
-
Virtually a subsidy....if the real markets were allowed; there would be many who could not operate, eventually causing a rise in prices.
One I personally dealt with and the Nexen bid reminded me of it, I am not allowed to sell my land to a developer if it has been designated as good farm land. If we truly had a "market" system, I should be able to sell to the highest bidder, or at least have the same amount of dollars in lieu of, however that is not the case. Farmland is protected, decreasing the value in comparison to development land or rec land. Realistically, if food was that important or valuable, it should command a higher value, and be allowed to compete. That is not the case; we have to protect it.....a policy.
(PS, I am not in favor of not being in control of our natural resources, Nexen just reminded me.)
Comment
-
2U...govs would rather subsidize lending institutions, insurance structures so as to keep food costs down. Can you imagine the outrage if food cost went back to 25% of the income, as it was in the 60's from the current 10%. Countries have had riots when these costs got out of hand. Direct subsidies go against all the free trade deals, so there has to be another way. Good Heavens, the feds lowered interest rates to stimulate the equities a while back…(I am sure with lots of Private lobbying) and look where that got us. I remember it well because I felt sorry for the retirees that had saved their money, put it in banks for safety and gov policy stimulates the equity market…not the market….good f’n grief. There is a group of financial wizards that want/need society to have lots of extra cash, to buy investments, toys, manufactured goods, etc.
One meeting in particular, a rather high ranking fed based in agriculture had referred to the "low food cost policy"...when I questioned him, he somewhat smearked and said...."not officially."
Comment
- Reply to this Thread
- Return to Topic List
Comment