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

[silverback]

Agstar, our family farm is doing pretty well right now, a long way from failure with no thanks to you and your little friends.

If you don't think you can negotiate anything better for western farmers then get the hell out of the way! Go hide in the bush and build wicker chairs or something.

We don't need you to add your layers of beaurocracy between farmers and the actual companies who handle the grain.

Once again, it is 2008.

[parsley]

I didn't know she was a dike, cotton, but obviously you know, so I presume she is a relative?

Canadians must like festering pots of racism, as you call it, because Canadians keep voting her the best blog in Canada.

[AdamSmith]

CP, Not that I need to defend SDA but every now and then I browse some of her stuff and I can't say I've read anything I consider racist.

Unless if you consider pointing out the evil's associated with radical Islamic terrorisim as being racist?

Nothing racist about disputing the questionable notion of catostophic global warming.

[parsley]

agatar,I agree that free market negotiationis that is rarely between equals.

But one gets to choose....read it again....CHOOSE which equal you do business with. If you don't like Cargill, you pick a smaller company. If you don't like Canada, you pick Italy.


What is really unequal, is when 430 hungry Wheat Board dogs are panting, expecting to be fed,snarling, and the farmer has no where to escape, except to the CWB kennel.


Now that's unequal.


Parsley

[Fransisco]

Racist- Anyone who is winning an argument with a Liberal.

[cottonpicken]

Special place sda.You can openly call for the death of 1.3 billion muslims and be applauded and never critized.

[parsley]

I must have missed her call for the death of 1.3 billion muslims.

Or did she have a rally in Saskatchewan? Or was it a sda virtual rally, as I didn't see any ads in the Western Producer.

Could you tell me when that sda post was, cotton, and I'll go back and read it? 1.3B That's 'massative'. Could be a lotta repercussions coming from this is what concerns me; remember what just a few cartoons resulted in.

Thanks.

Parsley

[silverback]

I take it you can provide a link to the post that calls for that cp?

I would be interested in seeing that for myself.

[Fransisco]

Good point silverback.

Either you back it up or apologize to the lady cotton.

[mcfarms]

Well thanks for the answers all and for keeping the thread on topic like always, it was as predictable an experiment as I thought. I win the 5 dollar bet I had with a friend who watches this site when I told him I could post some semi serious idea about what the "real" issue is with the CWB and the folks on here would turn it into something else quicker than the old kindergarden circle whisper game. Thanks to those who did try to give an on topic answer .

You've proven my point. Good to see the "marketing " going on on the marketing forum. Of course it's marketing ones own views and agendas not commodity marketing as one could vainly hope. I'm surprised though to see a few a didn't pick to be among those that wandered so far off course here Parsley was a given, Oh well. Off to the American sites where occasionally the Friday report and the CBOT gets some mention........

[chaffmeister]

I don't want to be disrespectful of the muslim community, but just wanted to add my 2 cents worth to the "problem with the CWB discussion that this thread started on:

IMHO

The economic argument is not all about “more money”. It is the basis for the ideological argument. You would never get anywhere with an ideological position on anything if it wasn’t aimed in the direction of a better system/process/environment for all concerned. It can be a moral argument or it can be an economic or financial argument. This one is both.

The Canadian medicare system is a great concept - providing excellent health care for all. The only reason people are calling for “choice” is because it’s failing. If it was doing what was expected of it, there would be no voices calling for change.

We have a democratic system of government. We have the freedom to choose another system – but we don’t. With all its flaws, it’s clearly the best system out there.

The issue about the ideological argument around the CWB is that both sides believe theirs is the moral high ground. However, the economic foundations of each argument profoundly distinguish them. And because this is a commercial business system we’re arguing about, ideologies are by definition, economic based.

The pro-CWB side has an astounding amount of theoretical econometric modeling using confidential data that says the CWB provides value through premium prices, market development, and countervailing power against the evil grain empires and the railroads, and so on. They also have intense rhetoric and, well, ideology. How can you disagree with arguments like “Working as one, the CWB provides farmers with marketing clout that they would not have otherwise”? (Answer: look at the real results.)

The pro-choice side has an astounding amount of real-life data and experience that shows – quite publicly – that the CWB system does not work. It doesn’t provide the efficiencies and benefits that the CWB says it does. Not even the returns that farmers in other places enjoy. And certainly not what Western Canadian farmers need and expect. How can you disagree with arguments like “Real life data and experience shows that the CWB system doesn’t work? It’s costlier than the open market system in many, many ways.”

I don't disagree with the argument for the freedom to make your own mistakes, but let's face it, the argument for the freedom to create wealth in the way you choose sure makes a lot more sense.

So argue on the ideology of freedom. But in my view, it’s the freedom to create wealth that you’re fighting for. You’re fighting for something better. I really doubt you’re fighting for something worse.


Efficiency is a moral imperative.
Freedom to choose begets efficiency.

[Fransisco]

Good points.

I am fighting for the freedom and the right to make rational decisions for myself, not irrational ones.

It has clearly been shown time and again when you give people this right and this freedom they will do better for themselves economically. Just look at the countries on the economic freedom index.

People will make mistakes from time to time but they do learn from them which is ultimately why they get ahead. It is the mistakes that leads a rational person in the right direction. You touch a stove you burn your finger, a rational person doesn't do it again, and irrational one does.

My fingers have been burned black by the CWB monopoly and I've had enough of it. Those that have come to enjoy the pain are free to continue, but I want out.

It is my right to sell my grain to whomever I want, I might not make the right choice every time, but I know I will over the long run.

[AdamSmith]

Excllent points chaff, as always!


I agree that I take for granted that others understand and assume such a simple concept that we need freedom in order to create greater wealth within this industry.

And to mcfarms, don't be surprised when the topic goes off course, many of us here are long past discusions concerning the color of curtains in our jail cells.

[Fransisco]

Speaking of ideology and economics check out this story from N Korea.

Take a good hard look at what a lack of freedom, individual rights and choice has done to that countries economics.

This is what the world would look like if everything was run by CWB bureaucrats. Thanks but no thanks.

http://freekorea.us/2008/03/20/the-beginning-of-the-end-food-shortages-reach-pyongyang/

[parsley]

You want an economic argument? I'll give you one. Only you'll have to think think big. Think Canadian.


Stuart Garson, past premier of Manitoba,commented about 1947 Wheat Board coming into effect. said it well:

"The effect of these provisions in practice was that the Wheat Board was changed from being an agency of the wheat producers charged with responsibility for getting the best possible price, to an agency of the Government, getting a price that would be fixed by the Government, that is a political price, using that phrase in its best sense”


The real economic arguments here are these...:

1. Wheat board Legislation was good for Canadians, after all, a national tarrif/tax on import and export agric. grain was put into place and made coffers fat.Good argument.

1.(a)More money for Canadian programs.Good argument.

2.The CWB provides jobs, jobs, jobs. Good argument.

3. The Gov't set the price of wheat inside Canada at $1.55 and that was good and cheap for Canadians after the war, but considering it was helping England.... Good argument.

3.(a)Besides politicians wouldn't piss off Eastern voters if farmers only paid the tax, with the election on the way. Good argument.

4. The CWB continues to discourage exporting by the use of high cost buybacks only for the west. Good policy for Eastern Canada. Good argument.

4(a)Ontario/Quebec can grow wheat/bly and satisfy demand BUT continue to feed cheap Western barley. Dandy for big populated Easterners.Good argument.

5.For all of Canada, it is good to have available 6.00 wheat instead of having to pay 20.00 for it. The greater good. Good argument.

6. And some will also argue that fat Canadians should send 3/4 of their grain to North Korea for .25/bu.FOB farm, of course, because it will be healthier for Canadians to become lean.Good argument.

7. Shouldn't winwin, with a huge tract of land, subsidize the pooling accounts for the burberts? Isn't Burbert's offasprung entitled to the same fancy boat as winwin's? Do you like winwin's kid better than burbert's kid? Good argument.

Think like the Canadian press. An economic argument is ALWAYS malleable.


Q The moral argument is this..."Even though it is good for everyone else, yet not necessarily good for you, why the hell should you be forced to sell your grain to the CWB?

A You should not be forced, because you are just as important as anyone else.

That is defensible.

Parsley