The problem with marketing choice

[Cockshutt]

parsley,

I don't want them as my business partners either. But as long as the CWB exists, they will always be there trying to shove their nose into my business. Not to be helpful, but to be destructive.

I think the Canadian Wheat Board, has been, and continues to be the MOST destructive thing on the prairies. As such, I don't believe it has any redeeming value what-so-ever. By promoting the idea of a dual-market or marketing choice, you are indirectly saying that it does have some redeeming value. You are also saying that you're just not sure about the open market and need to hedge your bets.

I think all the groups who have been promoting choice have made things worse because they are afraid to promote an honest to god open market. Afraid to sound extreme, afraid to offend someone, maybe even afraid of the wheatboard itself. This is no way to promote something, by being afraid to stand for something real.

If there is a group out there that is prepared to stand out and promote a real open market, an open market without the governments wheat board, I'll join in a heartbeat. Until then I guess I'll just wait and watch the fools repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Even the so called pro-choice wheat board director candidates keep talking about preserving the CWB and wanting a strong CWB, I really wonder if they even know what they believe in? It really doesn't inspire this open marketer to vote. I'm still trying to decide if I'll even bother.

[bobn]

cockshutt,

I don't think those that say they are in favor of marketing choice are afraid of the open market because they don't promote a specific open market system. It's the nature of the open market to develop on it's own. In the absence of government meddling a diverse open market system will develop. Any discussion on what type of system to develop would only result in endless discussion going no where, not unlike the current debate within the CWB on how to emulate a free market without actually being one. It's not our right to force any specific system on anyone else. That's the whole point of 'choice'. The existing regime seems bent on finding some magic pill that will soothe the concerns of the ones wanting choice. It's never going to happen! We all have our own version of how we will sell our grain. To clarify "choice" must mean complete freedom to market to whom ever you choose, with farmers and businesses who buy farmers grain, allowed to export out of Canada. I really don't care if the CWB survives anymore than I care about any other business or Cooperative. Goodale has created this entity that can't ever work as it is now, but it's not really up to those who want 'choice' to fix it.

[parsley]

cockshutt,

I would love to wave a magic wand and make the CWB Act disappear. With it would go everthing I despise about the Wheat Board system, and farmers could then sell wheat/barley in the same way they sell the rest of their crops.

I have never softsold wanting an open market. That being said, I don't think there is a hope of ever convincing the Bloc to vote against the Board, particularly if you heard them speak in debate in the House last week about the CWB and marketing choice. Or the farmers in Saskatchewan who had Dick Proctor deliver their socialist philosphy at the same debate.

We simply don't have enough voting clout to kill the Act to make a change for more marketing freedom, cockshutt. That's reality. That's why so many have moved on to:

1. Growing non-Boards grains
2. Finding marketing relief within the existing Act.

Frankly, when I get an export license for the grain, I don't care if wilagro needs/wants the Board to market his grain for him. If his marketing costs rise 50%, that's his choice cause he'll be proud to pay them if they triple. Board groupies WANT planned marriages and forced weddings. They want it that way.

I want a divorce from my forced wedding and I don't want any more forced marriages.

Parsley

[parsley]

One more thing cockshutt,

Organic farmers have completely developed their own market, singularily. Developed a method of production. Developed community peer groups to support production methods. Developed FOB farm transportation rate systems. Developed mills and cleaning facilities. Developed identity preserved. Developed liasons with business. Scorned government handouts for startup. Developed close ties with consumers. Developed value-added in communities.

These are not really a bunch of mealy-mouths afraid to voice an opinion or to tackle/ befriend an open market with open arms.

Believe me.

Parley

[bmj182]

When I was in university it was
estimated that 9/10 farmers would
be worse off than they are now and
1/10 would be way better off than
now, I'm not pro CWB, but from what
I've seen of neighbors ability to
interpret and act on future's prices,
puts, options, etc. it scares me to
think what might happen to a lot of
people that won't adapt!

[les]

bmj182
Even if we dont all understand everything thier will be lots of brokers out there that do understand and we can take the highest offer.

[Braveheart]

bmj182, there are lots of academics and professors who happen to think that the CWB adds more costs to the system than is returned as any benefit from single desk selling. It sounds like you weren't lucky enough to have studied under Carter, Loyns, Bercusson, Cooper, Smith, etc.

Usually, studies done by economists are completed with data and research that can be tested by peers. To date not one CWB testing study that has found the CWB beneficial has been done in an open manner to stand for critique. The opposite is true for studies that find the CWB to be a net cost to the system.

But ecomomists aside, the system the university you quote is promoting is not the dynamic type of agriculture Canada needs. We need self reliant growers capable of making pricing decisions. In fact, why would any university or learning center promote anything but teaching people to be better at the things their profession requires. Were you short changed bjm182?

Another point on this issue is that the CWB only handles human consumption and export wheat and barley. Growers everywhere are increasingly growing a wider variety of crops most of which aren't under the CWB's thumb. There is no clamor for a single desk to market those crops. So growers must be satisfied with their marketing abilities.

You must be a graduate of the U of S. It's professors and post graduates have been well oiled by the wheat board. I would argue that SK's ag grads and the entire grain industry (especially the pool accounts) are the worse for it.

Braveheart

[Dyno]

Now why would you go and start taking pot shots at the U of S Braveheart? I have followed with interest the entertaining discussions to this point. When you start to lash out at everyone whom you "perceive" as having views counter to your own you lose all credibility. I am proud to say I am a U. of S. grad who was trained to engage in debate without resorting to juvenile name calling.
With respect
Dyno

[parsley]

bmj182,

Who takes the most interest in the amount of money you earn? Who follows your finances the most closely? Who stands to lose the most if a stupid decision is made about marketing your crop? Who stands to gain the most if your grain hits the top of the market?


dyno,

The majority of the funding for the University of Saskatchewan Agricultural Programs are funded by these three: The Federal Government, the Provincial Government and the CWB. It is no surprise to anyone, then, if what is taught reflects who does the paying. All three funders promotethe CWB. Follow the money, dyno. The U of S has mouthed the CWB, to the point of looking absolutely ridiculous.

Parsley

[Dyno]

Parsley, each of us, is of course entitled to our opinions, but surely you don't honestly believe your own words, for if you do, then all academics, researchers and journalists on all sides of the grain marketing debate are in someone's pocket, including those who hold the same view as your own. A truly sad and paranoid view of the world indeed!