COWS

[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.

[jensend]

sorry fran. you don't get it. i'm not against free and open trade and markets; i'm just saying if you think that's the environment you're operating in you're fooling yourself. willing buyers and willing sellers indicates a balance between the two sides which we don't have and for the last couple of days i've just been saying that's a bigger problem than the cwb (which, if you missed it, i have been saying should be dismantled). did you see the reference to the economist article this morning in good morning prairies report saying ethanol is a phony?

[TOM4CWB]

jensend,

Good points!

Reality is "global warming" is in the same realm (as bio-fuels)... but has changed the economic reality for so many... as has the threats 9-11 created.

Fact is we will need to convert to a non-oil based economy at some point... I believe sooner is BETTER than...`later`... when we will be pushed into a tighter box with fewer alternatives!

[Fransisco]

Okay on that I can agree, we are not always operating in a free trade environment. Which is my 'beef'(pun intended) here. Freer trade in all areas is the goal we should be striving for.

By the way, have you got some kind of a problem with the shift key on your keyboard or have you just got something against capital letters?

[Fransisco]

Okay Tom lets try it again. How is milk different than wheat and barley. And how is it that you are so different from Chris Birch?

[jensend]

can't shift; if i type any faster i'll lose control.

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

The capital invested in Milk Quota is a franchise. This is the biggest difference.

The CWB (as yet) has not capitalised quota delivery... The CWB Act depends upon "Trade and Commerce" not joint Agriculture jurisdiction with provinces... which makes a world of difference on property rights'& restrictions...

Provinces can bind local Ag production intra-provincial (within the province) and regulate virtually anything they get the urge to control.

Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board respected their members/growers... there was no quota to decapitalise... it was very easy on a relative scale to provide marketing choice... it met the objective of wheat growers' marketing needs/desires by a wide democratic margin as well!

Clearly the CWB could do the same as Ontario has done... and in Organics... The CWB has already done so to a large extent.

Further Conservative Party Policy supports a choice in grain marketing because it is strictly a federal matter... and doesn't require provincial approval to deregulate.

[Fransisco]

Tom you are using rationalizations as a substitute for reasoning.

The truth is there is no difference when it comes to the fundamental principle we are talking about here. If Chris Birch wants to sell his milk to whomever he wants he has the same right as you do to sell your grain to whomever you want. Milk is not and should not be different than wheat.

You are avoiding the subject and the contradiction inherent in your position.

The question of the capitalization of quota is one of what is the best way to deregulate the supply management system. Not one of whether or not it is right or wrong to have such a system in the first place.

The argument that supply management is a 'franchise' and that the price of entry into said franchise is the price of quota is an old an false one. It is not a franchise, it is a cartel.

McDonald's is a franchise, Tim Hortons is a franchise, Home Depot is a franchise. There is nothing stopping you, I or anyone else from opening up a burger joint, donut shop, or lumberhardware store across the street from these places. That is not the case with supply management commodities. They are a closed shop, no competition allowed.

If the question is what is the fairest way to rectify the problem of quota capitalization I would say the answer is to pay it out at today's value while at the same time moving to an open market system. Australia did something similar to this not that long ago.

But before one gets to that point you have to come to the conclusion of whether or not such a system is right or wrong in the first place. And it is most definitely wrong.