COWS

[parsley]

"anybody" ALSO includes any farmer in compulsory supply management.

Please note this one.

[jensend]

fine, you think you can live with no regulation of marketing. i understand that. what should be regulated? should farmers be able to sell produce grown with unsafe methods such as unregistered pesticides? that's what i'm getting at; complete deregulation gets you things like lead in children's toys, pesticide or vaccine residues in food products, etc. just because a farmer grows it your statement says he should be able to sell it. should unregistered varieties be segregated to protect the interests of those producing registered varieties? i'm sure you've grown ip crops and benefited from the regulation the marketplace put on the production and handling of them. you try to make your arguments so simplistic and undeniable that you open the door to abuses that you, i'm sure, would want disallowed.

[cottonpicken]

Open free unregulated and well if an indian happened to own the land under my feet,well thats b.s because i stand for open free unregulated............i keep digging but it keeps getting darker


parsley

[cottonpicken]

"imagine a boot,stepping on a human face,forever"

-George Orwell

[parsley]

Actually jensend, this discussion is about supply management, and whether or not it should be based upon forced participation. My premise is that it should not.

Nor do I think artists should be forced to participate in a national marketing scheme, with quotas for oils/watercolors painted in a year I think that is ULTIMATELY, an unhealthy approach to national interest, let alone individual rights.

You try to change the focus of the discussiom to regulation within a marketing system, and more specifically, food safety. That is another issue. And of course, you know that.

Basically, farmers should be allowed to sell what they grow. Buyers should be able to buy what they can sell.

Organics built an entire industry selling directly to consumers, with NO NO NO NO Government involvement. Unique, isn't it? Possible? Yes.


Buyers and sellers = markets.

Government entrants into this well-established partnership serves to introduce a virus that feeds itself.

IMHO, of course,
Parsley

[parsley]

Don't ever try to make Parsley an owner of that quote. They are indeed, cotton's words, with full honors for rudeness attributable to only you.

Again.

The issue was and still is whether or not farmers should be jailed for selling what they grow. They should not.

Parsley

[jensend]

well this has passed some time but we all have better things to do. i'll just say i don't think you'd like totally deregulated marketing. every game has rules and it's not as simple as you try to portray it.

[parsley]

You were very gracious in replying:

"fine, you think you can live with no regulation of marketing. i understand that".

I agree that our society is not simple. And talking to each other often opens a door of thought. I think that is the point Tom4CWB wanted to make.

There has to be a better way of getting along than beating each other in court.

Best, Parsley

[Fransisco]

Jensend regulating markets and setting food safety standards are two totally separate issues. The issue is complicated to you because you keep hanging your hat on straw dog arguments.

[jensend]

no they aren't. darned near every commodity traded has specifications. you can forget econ 100 when you talk marketing. those conditions might exist in some village a thousand miles from civilization but i haven't seen them lately.

[parsley]

Are markets:

1. willing buyers and willing sellers or

2. willing buyers and unwilling sellers or

3. unwilling buyers and willing sellers or

4. unwilling buyers and unwilling sellers>

I'm confused.


This is a very elementary way to answer.
Which one is the best for our country
For our community? For each and every farmer?
Which one, jensend, would you choose?

Fransisco?

[jensend]

then you better consider all those other little conditions of a free and efficient market like barriers to entry and all that. of course we want willing buyers and sellers but if one side holds a disproportionate share of the market efficiency disappears or is it easier to ignore that little nugget? guys on here are complaining that there is no way to arbitrage fertilizer prices between north dakota and saskatchewan. guess why? it ain't a free and efficient market because fertilizer manufacturers can influence the market in ways that fertilizer buyers can't. that concept is a way bigger problem for farmers than the cwb. you'll increase revenues without the cwb because it's inefficient in the market but the imbalances in the market will eat up the gained efficiency in increased costs set not by your econ 100 principles but by oligopolists that have the power to tell you how much extra you'll pay for their goods or services. it seems to me that every time grain prices spike it heralds the loss of more grain farmers because once prices slump (oh, they won't this time?) costs have already increased and won't be completely rolled back so the smaller (relatively speaking) less efficient producers are peeled off the bottom and the guys just above them can run a little faster on the treadmill. they get to run for a few more years.

[parsley]

So, I take it then, that your solution is to solidly head for #4?

[parsley]

You have apparently abandoned #1.

#2 or #3 can only be sustained if one group is appreciably stupider than the other.

So that leaves #4.


Now ask yourself, Is that what I really want?

Parsley

[jensend]

didn't say that at all. you were right before when you said you didn't understand me. there are buyers and sellers. i just said there isn't the efficiency in the market that you want to assume. have a nice evening.