My take on what the real problem people have with the CWB

[mcfarms]

I've sat back and watched this argument on here for what? 10 years,( ok 77) to me the core to this debate is sales timing and who makes that timing decision. If the board can get a premium for aggregation, quality control and brand recognition , market intelligence and volume they then add value and I'd be prepared to work with them going forward. But they have to create value and it has to be tangible.
I think what people are asking for here is to have that ability and responsibilty for timing of sales for all board grains more and more into the producers hands .
All the benefits the board purports to give would still accrue back to the producers but producers need to be the ones to sell the grain based on the prices offered.

Am I on the right track?

[parsley]

I'll post this again. It needs posting twice.



How soon we get distracted by the likes of Vader.


The debate is, and always has been about farmers being able to sell what they grow, what they own.

Period.

Liken it to being able to sell the land you own.


Or perhaps you approved of the Saskatchewan Land Bank experiment.

I'm sure, in retrospect, the likes of Vader would.

They'll have "seen the light", because Blakney would have shown him the Gov't books in the back room, disguised with a green lightbulb, and all those columns of red figures would seem acceptable because they were not red.


The CWB......there is only one issue.


Prices, timing, province, season, present spouse, or currency....none of them matter unless farmers, themselves, have the right to sell what they own, when they want, to whom they want.

Nothing else matters.

Nothing difficult about it IF farmers can stay focused on the important issue instead of chasing side-issues like timing etc. Good grief.

Parsley

[mcfarms]

That wasn't the question parsley, If you put the effort into getting property rights entrenched into the constitution that you put into this website maybe you'd help more than just grain farmers?

[TOM4CWB]

MCFARMS,

The right to buy our grain... must be an earned right... by a process that partners are required to respect each other... in a professional and business like manner.

I should be able to develop a business relationship with You... Parsley, The King of Spain... or the Queen of Sheba... if that is our desire.

And the CWB can take their $3.32/t... for admin. AND THAT IS IT. Any more than this... and it is an abusive relationship... that allows a big bully to beat up a grower who cannot defend themselves.

THEN...

The CWB WIll provide valuable professional services... or disappear.

Trying to emulate the productive benefits of the free market... with a regulated system... is futile.

If the CWB care about the individual 'designated area' grower... that must make their living from growing grain... they will share the pain of required change... with us... and allow market choices.

[parsley]

I have put efforts into intrenching property rights.

Have you?


Parsley

[parsley]

chaff says:

"If you want to win this political battle, you'll need more than the ideological argument"


Take a snapshot of the bi-election in Saskatchewan.

Reminds us taht people living in an area want to pick their own candidate, instead of having some politician, (I'm referring to all parties), choose for them.

Canadians want to make their own CHOICES.

A government has to believe in it's people if it wants to thrive, and if it wants the country to thrive.

Parsley

[parsley]

"If the board can get a premium for aggregation, quality control and brand recognition they then add value and I'd be prepared to work with them."


That definitely IS the question, Mc.

Translation:
Gimme more cash and I'll cave.


Uh huh.

Lot of people I know WON'T settle for cash.

Parsley

[mcfarms]

Tom I hear what your saying and I agree but isn't this timing of sales and who controls the sales much the same thing?
As far as property rights Parsley I've spent countless hours on them because in Alberta with all the surface rights issues and others demanding access to our lands I feel it's a major major issue, one that the gov't refuses to face. If the CWB issue was tied into property rights it would doo alot of people good rather than just the grain farmers.
I fear Parsley is so stuck in her idealogical rut that see only see's one solution to her problem. Can't always chase cows in a straight line parsley as long as you know where the gate is. But I forgot you had a cow once so you know that.....

[parsley]

Maybe it iS all about money, Mc, and it often is even when you really don't want it to be,.... but why would I accede that money is the only valuable currency one has to offer, when I didn't believe it?

I thought there was more.

[AdamSmith]

My problem with the cwb is the cwb system is counter to everything that I can attribute to contributing to the success of my farm and to the happiness within my life.

#1. free will has allowed me to make decisions that work best for me. I have confidence in my abilities and I love what I do. I am not "scared" or "intimidated" by the market. I don't buy into the "grain company boogyman" hysteria of the wonky left.

I think Cotten quoted Andrew Carnegie earlier when he said;

Concentrate your energies, your thoughts and your capital. The wise man puts all his eggs in one basket and watches the basket.
Andrew Carnegie

Incidentally CP that is the motto I live by.

The single desk system robs me of my ability to live by my own motto.

I, and I alone am the one to watch over my basket, and being compelled to hand that role over to a bunch of people who zero personal stake in watching my basket is abhorant to my sensabilities and is repugnant to everything I believe and live by.

So as I stated earlier the cwb Act is the problem, everything else are merely symptoms.

New word

The CWB is Skanktacular.

[parsley]

Mc, I am stuck in an ideological rut because I have chosen to be and BECAUSE I have very decidedly and clearly tied the CWB issue to property rights.

I have repeatedly stated that the CWB is not an economic issue; rather, it is a farmer ownership issue, a property right's issue.

I regret you missed it.

Grain is the farmers' property.

I have been very clear and consistent, over the past decade over this issue,
and whether it has been through contact, in the early beginnings, with discussions with Danielle Smith, going to present contact with various layers of Government, property rights have alwys been included in forming policy.

Ideologues do just that, Mc.

They believe in consistent philosophy, being adopted by and applying to all citizens, not based upon location.

Not only do freedom to choose philosophies try to construct their arguments within a meaningful framework, but opposing philosophies do the same, thus we have the socialist philosophy wanting to nationalize land ownership, nationalize industry, nationalize thinking.

Basically, it's all about "me choosing"
or "someone else choosing" for me.

And yes,....some of my choices have only served to cause my heart to ache.


So decide.....what is best for you....

The CWB choosing for you, CLAIM they choose the best.

Believe it if you must.

Meanwhile, choice-advocates openly recognize that choice entails both good and bad.

It is what it is.

Parsley

[Southpaw]

MC, for me the issue is, It's my grain and I should have the right to sell it to whomever I choose to. I market all my other crops so what is so special about wheat and barley? I need to be able to choose the people and companies that I wish to do business with.

[just_wondering]

my take is that property rights are paramount but that belief is not enough. We as farmers must also cosider the economics of the whole situation.
Ideology is not enough, numbers are not enough.
Another aspect to consider are the captivity costs associated with the CWB.
Much like Chaff's anaology on the black binder in which sales that are lost are not counted in performance figures.

[parsley]

Economics is indeed, important.

But economics must be also based on a moral foundation...ie if 200 DA farmers could expropriate the grain of the remainder of the DA farmers, by force of weapons for instance. It's wrong.
or
Handicapping just_wondering so other pooling accounts bulge, is wrong.

My point is this, economics must be based upon a sound moral foundation.

Single deskers who's only goal is to get more money, through jailing and force, cannot pass the morality test, and that is why:
1. People will change to choice marketing based upon the morality foundation

2. Economic benefits follow a moral foundation.. ie Killing and stealing is immoral, and long term economic benefits never accrue from them.

Action not based upon good is bound to fail.

The CWB is failing.


Parsley

[just_wondering]

Parsley you and I live in a province where the NDP is the Natural governing party. Many people like to give control over to the state in our cradle to grave society. You and I can tell them all about our morals but, they simply disagree with that moral code
Hit them in the pocket book.