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

[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.

[AdamSmith]

JW,

It's a chicken and egg situation here.

We can point out all the flaws within the system, we can do it in bold type and put seven exclamation points after it but until the law allows a free and unfettered market to function all we've ended up doing is whinning and bitching.

We've whinned and bitched about the quota system, the cwb adopted the contract system.

We've whinned and bitched about poor market signals they invented the PRO.

We've whinned and bitched about the government running the show, Ralph gave us elected dictators.

We whinned and bitched about poor cash flow and low initials, the cwb heard us and invented the FPC and the EPO's.

We pointed out fundemental flaws and the cwb did address them. The problem is they've only ever been addressed within the context maintaining the monopoly.

There is zero way for the cwb to address the freedom issue while at the same time still maintain the monopoly.

We asked for choice and they say the FPC's are choice.

A Free Market allows free interaction between buyer and seller. Without it there can be no arbitrage, without it there can be no market dynamic, without out it there is no ability to enter into meaningful contracts.

These things are what create wealth, and without that freedom, the wealth you seek can never be created.

The other major flaw with the "economics only" approach is that most of the die hard supporters of the curreent system are driven more by keeping the wealth out of others hans than they are in putting the wealth into their own hands.

Wayne Easter and Stewart Wells and Rod Flaman are driven to keep the wealth out of grain companies hands and "rich farmers" hands and they see success in achieving that end.

So when you say "The cwb cost me x amount this year" they say to themselves "Great, mission complete, another successful year"

The moral arguement about "freedom" is one they can not address, so they switch it to an economic issue and offer their side of the story to it, which then casts doubts about our sides economic argument and then were stuck spinning our wheels in limbo, where people just tune out.

The only thing the can say about "Freedom" is that it really isn't that big of a deal. And then try to get you to admit it as well.

Once they have accomplished that, they know they can fight you to a draw on the economics and they have always been able to maintain their monopoly status with that strategy. Why would they change a strategy when it has served them so well in the past?

So sorry JW, until our side is prepared to put the moral postion of "freedom" as the paramount issue, you might as well just accept that contract calls, PRO's, EPO's and FPC's will be the standard for many, many years to come.

[agstar77]

First of all there are no free markets in the world, only degrees of control. Second , elected dictator is total nonsense. But you are right you whine a lot.

[AdamSmith]

Agstar, the world is awash with examples of free markets by using my definition of "FREE INTERACTION BETWEEN BUYERS (of a product or service)AND SELLERS (of a product or service)

A free market is any market in which you are free to negotiate with the buyers or sellers of your choice.

So when I say "unfettered" I am referring to no interference within the negotiating process between the buyer and seller.

And of course the directors are dictators. You oversee a monopoly held togther by force of crippling fines or jail or both, by any rational definition that is dictitorial.

Only dictators can get away with ignoring the 2007 barley plebicite and continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of producers.

Dictators pass by-laws about conduct and the excuse themselves. re Rod Flaman as a Liberal candidate and the conflict of interest that that presents and is dismissed by the BOD's.
The way I understand it Rod was even allowed to participate in the decision. If ever there was an example of a corupted decision I don't know what is.

[agstar77]

Your dictator statement still doesn't stand up. When you phone your grain dealer and get a quote you don't like , A: do you ask for more ?or B: not sell? Doesn't quite seem like a negotiation, seems more like a take it or leave it arrangement.

[cottonpicken]

Didnt think anyone would "understand" that quote.Good job Adam.