COWS

[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.

[parsley]

And I agree with you that "there isn't the efficiency in the market",at least there isn't for me, hence asking which way do we head!

How do we get market efficiency? I am definitely an unwilling seller to the CWB. And definitely against forced selling, by threat of jail, to the CWB

Pick 1,2,3 or 4.

But of course, the age old option, when discussion gets a little uncomfortable, is to run for the apron strings.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

And while you are at it explain these.

How is it exactly that a 299% tariff on butter makes Canada a safer place?

How is it exactly that allowing someone like Chris Birch to sell milk without quota will lead to a free-for- all in cocaine and heroin?

[Fransisco]

And I vote for option 1 on parsley's list. It is the only win-win scenario.

[jensend]

i don't see an option that has existed in fertilizer lately: a seller with captive buyers or in grains the last few years: a desperate seller to a small number of buyers. of course the second scenario also exists in the extreme in cattle. your econ 100 conditions for a free and open market rarely exist anymore. dwayne andreas (adm) said he absolutely didn't want free and open grain markets and his board of directors would fire him if he ever did work for free markets.

[Fransisco]

Well there is a good argument from the left. We shouldn't have free trade because the big bad multi-nationals don't want it.