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

[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

[parsley]

So, chaff,
I don't feel like a battle today, as I am quite buoyed after having a one on one visit with the PM yesterday, so I don't doubt for a minute you won't get the last word.

My take on it is this.....The North Koreans can see there are more dollars in the West. More wealth available. More wealth created.

Economics is not the issue Koreans chase or show interest in. But you want to send them an economics argument, anyway.

I consider they have embraced ideology.

Thus, I approached it this way... if a person can show them where their ideology is flawed, point to it and say...here is where it's broken, they would have more of an inclination to say, "Well, I don't like force either", as opposed to saying, "You are greedy, and money isn't everything".


I cannot argue "more money" if they don't care to increase their standard of living, any more than I can tell a woman to remove her veil (not there for the reason to warm her head )if she wants to cool down her hot head a little. lol


And Mc,

I am a such a problem, I fully admit it.

Your topic is "My take on what the real problem people have with the CWB" . I realize it was.

And although I've been long-winded, and quite ineffective at times in this thread, you will have to admit,I've been particularly tenacious,coming to a conclusive comment on your thread topic:

" The real problem is CWB force."

It says it all.

Parsley

PS.
Mc...It was cotton who veered off the topic, not me, but I admit I chased his comment.

[Fransisco]

After giving this some thought I think what we are talking about here is not a chicken and egg question.

It is one of <b>cause</b> and <b>effect.</b>

Ideology or principle is the cause, economics is the effect.

A proper or sound ideology leads to a proper and sound effect. The status quo CWB ideology is not a sound one and as such does not lead to a sound economic outcome.

Because one leads to another it is important not to lose sight of either in this debate.

[parsley]

Interesting point.
Are cause and effect equal though?

Take the case of the Japanese slaughtering Chinese.

Millions of them.

Cause> Effect
Ideology>Slaughter
Was it the ideology you would want to change, or would you simply want to change the effect...the killing part? Substitute it with cutting out tongues, for example? How about ONLY expropriating their property?

The choices one makes inevitably causes an effect. Economics is an effect, is it not?

The good/badchoices you make causes how much money you make.

Is the converse true though?

Does the amount of money you make cause you to make good/bad choices?

That begs the question: What kind of choices do poor people make? Do poor people inevitably make bad or good choices?

Hmmmmmm