Off to a Parlimentary vote----Please respond

[kamichel]

The Wheat Board and Monopoly are two different things. That is a very common among CWB supporters and voters that voting for the monopoly was voting for the Board. Just some history among the first years of CWB operation, they did not have a monopoly. When world prices were good everyone delivered through the grain traders prices. When the world prices were down and the CWB had an initial price higher than the trade, all the farmers put their grain through the CWB. Fortunately for the CWB every year that the farmers gave their grain through the CWB system they never made the initial payment back from the market. Costing the federal government unpressidented amounts of money for the times. Solution was to give the CWB monopoly power. Seemed to appear to work for a while since world prices were high for a while. Many times the initial price was lower than the overall grain marketted for the year. The government always bailed them out. These days the initial is so low that it is impossible not to get it from the market.

[tower]

Chaffmeister said"
Did you know the plebiscite was about CHOICE – not about the CWB as an institution. When you say 86% voted to have the choice of dealing with the board, that’s a misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding. If you want the “choice” of the CWB, you vote for the status quo – the single desk. The ONLY reason to vote otherwise is that you don’t want the SINGLE DESK – you want CHOICE. "

You can say that in capital letters all you want. That doesn't make it true. A farmer might vote to have the choice of delivering to the board. If the process of making choice available to farmers negates the option of delivering to the board, then we as farmers have lost one of our choices. If I lose that choice then all I am left with is dealing with the multinationals like ADM.



I think that for farmers who voted to have the choice of delivering their barley to the CWB there needs to be a CWB marketing barley. If they have to become a grain company to survive and compete I don't need that I already have a number of those.

Take ADM for example, averaging $1.5 billion in net income per annum. Take a look at the following and count the number of times it is stated that the company would have done better but grain prices went up for a short spell and that ADM is counting on rising profits due to lower grain prices again.

http://boston.stockgroup.com/sn_newsreleases.asp?symbol=adm&newsid=8880141

I don't remember anything from the CWB that said the board would do better if there were lower grain prices.

[TOM4CWB]

kamichel,

Clearly the "SIngle Desk" did not start until 1993, when Goodale created it... then with his Order in COuncil in 1996 he made sure the Agents of the CWB could maintain and continue to steal from what turns out to be billions from wheat/barley growers in the "designated area" after the Dave Sawatsky ruling. We are into 11 years of this obsene confiscation scheme. NOT 70 years... 14 years.

Grain growers from the "designated area" were allowed to by pass the CWB with their own produce grown on their own farm before 1993... seed being the primary system used to attain no-cost exort licenses into the human consumption markets of the world.

[kamichel]

http://www.admworld.com/

ADM will make more profits by lower grain prices because the lions share of their business is in processing. Not just as a grain trader. It is good to have the extra competition of ADM as a buyer here, although I would not count them very high on my prefered places of delivery.

[silverback]

How about I decide who gets to buy my product by letting me decide which company has the best price to me.

I don't really care if a company makes 20 billion dollars profit in a year. If they are offering a price higher than the cwb can give me, they will get to buy my grain. If the cwb is higher, they will get it.

That evil word "profit" from the cwb zombies keeps popping up.

[chaffmeister]

Tower comments in italics:

<i>A farmer might vote to have the choice of delivering to the board. </i>
Yes. That would be the status quo – keeping things just the way they are (Option #1 on the plebiscite). Yes, indeed – that would be a choice.
But don’t confuse Option #2 with a vote for the status quo – because its not. Voting for option #2 is a vote to get rid of the single desk but have provisions for the CWB to continue to participate in the barley market.

<i>If the process of making choice available to farmers negates the option of delivering to the board, then we as farmers have lost one of our choices.</i>
I agree. You would have lost one option. But that’s all you’ve lost.
(I’m not against the CWB, I’m against the Single Desk and everything that goes with it.)

<i>If I lose that choice then all I am left with is dealing with the multinationals like ADM. </i>
Even with the CWB single desk, your grain still gets sold to ADM. If you think you do better with the CWB selling to ADM, so be it. Remember the data I showed you? Still haven’t looked at it, have you?

<i> I think that for farmers who voted to have the choice of delivering their barley to the CWB there needs to be a CWB marketing barley.</i>
I agree. Someone should tell the CWB.

<i> If they have to become a grain company to survive and compete I don't need that I already have a number of those. </i>
You’re only listening to the CWB. Others have explained quite clearly that the CWB could be a viable marketing agency in a choice market. And it wouldn't be another grain company.

<i>Take ADM for example …… the company would have done better but grain prices went up for a short spell and that ADM is counting on rising profits due to lower grain prices again. </i>
Yes – buyers (consumers) of commodities do better when prices are lower. Just like sellers (producers) of commodities do better when prices are higher. This is true with or without the CWB Single Desk. I hope you don't think that the CWB keeps ADM from making money because if you do, we should start a whole new thread to go into that one.

More pertinent to the discussion is the value of the CWB Single Desk relative to its cost. Take a look at the Grain Monitor’s Report and Section 5 of the Sparks Study (as I’ve directed you to already). If logic and open-mindedness prevails, you will see that your costs are higher with a CWB system and sales performance is below average – truly a double whammy. This may be acceptable to you but I don’t understand why anyone would demand others to accept it.


Do you expect the CWB to provide a financial benefit to your farm? If so, how that’s working for you? (After you take a look at the data.)