Tom's Multi-National's

[lakenheath]

We tend to agrue back and forth what it would be like to deal with multi-nationals rather than the likes of the far from perfect CWB.

I was just curious if Tom has studied any court cases in the USA where American farmers have taken some of the multi-nationals to court. Well, here is a quick summary of one instance:

Henry Lee Picket vs. Tyson Fresh Meat

Basically 30,000 producers accused Tyson of illegal manipulatoin of the market through "captive supply". This is where a meatpacker puts themselves in a position to dictate market prices (obviously low) in a manner the Packers and Stockyards Act deams illegal. I won't get into the in's and outs.

Result:

The jury deemed Tyson guilty. But, amazingly Jude Lyle E. Strom set aside the verdict.Stating the no matter how much Tyson's actions disadvantage cattlemen and regardless of its illegality under federal legislation, must be allowed, because, well, that was the way business was done!!!!!!!!!!

Faith, trust, relatoinships lad dee da Tom!!!!!!!!!

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath;

Guess which two speakers in the ABC annual meeting... and didn't have a bad word about the CWB "single desk" monopoly?

[lakenheath]

fill me in....

[TOM4CWB]

Lakenheath's multinationals.

Multinationals can adapt to any system, anywhere, and create channels of profit out of a CWB system "single desk" that would otherwise not be possible.

I do not hold a reasonable profit expectation against any entity...

Especially if each partner is willing to encourage and foster the respect of other partner's right to existance...

And equal right to prosperity in the chain between the production and consumption phases of the chain itself.

This is necassary especially if the Chain is a closed loop system.

Judgement of the equality of wealth distribution within the chain is somewhat in the eye of the beholder... no doubt.

Risk participation within this process also determines the participation in wealth distribution... further complicating the equality of wealth distribution within chain partners.

I said I would rather partipate with Cargill 10 times sooner than the CWB...

Even though at times real concerns existed to the chain commitments...

Each time Cargill delivered on a reasonable and fair conclusion that We on our farm could live with.

The same conclusions cannot be reached regarding our CWB engagements.

1. PPO CWB Hedge contracts are not honoured... they have always been honoured by every Marketer we deal with... including Cargill.

2. PPO CWB Basis contracts are written with a real bias in favour of the CWB... with unreasonable termination clauses...

Basis Contracts with every other marketer we work with... including Cargill; have dealt with our farm on an equitable... if not more than fair termination result and liquidation compensation arrangement.


Respectfully, Lakenheath... I do not believe the CWB will respond in a responsible manner till they actually own assets... and are responsible for them.

I do not see a "single desk" monopoly CWB attaining an asset base in the current WTO atmosphere... or "designated area" poisioned environment.

[lakenheath]

I hope with all my heart you are right Tom. Give me an open market as you describe. But you can't blame people for being gunshy or leary of dealing with a few multi-national grain companies. We have seen this system go wrong in the U.S. I would rather fight the root causes of agricultural problems like overproduction and subsidies. Not much I can do as individual about the subsidies, but i can hopefully make farmers aware that our corporate model of agriculure is far from perfect. Look at what the corn model in the USA has done to that country. A simple crop like corn has turned a nation obese, diabetes raveged and cancer filled. Do we contiue as "bricks in the wall" farmers are do we change for the better or ourselves and our nations?