Milling Oats vs Milling Wheat

[agstar77]

We did have farmers working with farmers when the original three wheat pools existed. Then the survival of the fittest mentality took over with the three pools competing against one another. This led to their demise and the takeover of the grains industry by large corporations with no farmer input. Most farmers do not market their products , they simply shop for the best price among a few buyers. As for being partners, that would imply that we would share in the proceeds from commodity sales. Iam willing to share through pooling if everyone is better off for it and it means the survival of farm families. What is your position on sharing for the common good or do you believe agriculture will be better off if everyone looks out for their own interests at the expense of all others?

[parsley]

Good Morning agstar,

Sorry, I was away yesterday, I want to address your question.

Sharing for agreed-upon 'common good' is wonderful. Most families function like this. The Lion's Club. Churches.

But there is a tremendous difference between vouluntary participation and forced participation.

If you have to threaten farmers with jail to make them deal with the CWB, everyone loses. The common good you dream about becomes so diminished, it has lost its' value.

You should well know how it works in families. Force a child to farm when they want to be an architect and they will not thrive.Neither will the farm.

Should I force one religion on a population in the name of the common good, agstar, as is done in Iraq?

Force simply doesn't work over the long haul either.

In the 1990, National Geographic atlas, the statistics are stark:

The Per Capita Income of Switzerland was $21,250.00 per year, with 100% literacy in their population.

The Per Capita Income of China was $300.00 per year with a literacy of 66%.

China's policies were adopted based upon your very same political 'common-good' goal, with the force of the state backing it up. You'd love it there because everyone gets exactly the same.

Their human rights policies are based upon the 'common-good' goal.

Their monetary policies are based upon the 'common-good' goal.

But where would most Agri-villers sooner live?

I believe in building and working together, and volunterering, and giving, and participating, and co-operating, and partnering, and liasing with the right to chose who my partners will be.

It is a personal philosophy that will enable me to fulfil my immediate goals of acquiring more cash for paying my phone bills. And my longer term goals of educating the family. And long, long term goals of seeing agriculture actually survive.

I do not subscribe to bullying, or jailing, or coercing, or fining, or commanding customs to perscribe ascertained forfeitures,or decreeing, (using a political CWB vehicle), simply to pool profits, though.

A willing partner who WANTS to work and build with me, agstar, instead of someone who is forced to work with me, will inevitably produce both better short term and long term results.

And if you really examine your own political philosophy agstar, my basic question to you is this...do you condone voluntary participation or forced participation?

Parsley

[agstar77]

I believe in freedom of choice for most things as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or where it is contrary to the common good. I have never been forced to grow grain for any group or been forced to sell my grain through any group. If I wish to receive benefits from a pooling marketing agency then I can sell through them. We can argue all day about the fairness of buybacks and other mechanisms but the fact is they exist. In an ideal world we could have a totally open market and everyone would be treated fairly but you and I know that wouldn't happen. The good news is that we can debate all these issues and perhaps we will find a way to let everyone do their own thing without killing the industry. The real problem is the return farmers receive under any marketing scheme. Do you believe U.S. farmers would survive without massive subsidies? How do we increase returns ? Decrease production? Get better international trade arrangements ?

[silverback]

Agstar, my question is this.

What grows best in your little corner of the world?? Do you grow it? Do you get paid a competitive price for it?

In my little corner of the world, the best agricultural product to grow is wheat, then barley, then canola. The weather is dictating this to me lately. So if I choose to farm, the best product I can grow is wheat, but how do I get the highest price I can for it? Can I contact anyone I want to find out if they would like to buy it? No. So I end up hoping the wheat board is doing that for me. Are they? It doesn't look like it to me. If I am looking for the highest price for my wheat so I can keep farming, it appears that I would be better off selling it outside of Canada. However, the gov't has made this nearly impossible and illegal if I don't jump through their hoops. Excuse me if I don't think I should be in jail for trying to deliver some grain to someone who will pay me enough to make a profit.

Is it so wrong for me to be allowed to do what is best in my corner and you to do what is best in your corner? Maybe if I get more friends together than you can get, we can come over and tell you what you can do on your farm. Would you like that? That would just be "common good" wouldn't it??

[parsley]

agstar,

You know full well that buybacks and regulations are the mechanisms that the state employs to force my grain through the Board.

(Just recall the 'little' regulation saying if you have a number on your arm, you head to Auchwitz)

Look at it full in the face. It's force, agstar. Force because the threat of jail and fines are real.

Sorry, agstar, but I don't ever want to think like you and I don't want people, who believe employing force to achieve their ends is legitimate, being my partner...in anything.

The CWB is like a marriage gone bad. One by one, the single deskers take a look at their CWB bride, and simply leave, thinking, she is a ugly mess.

Just acknowldging the single desk marriage was on the rocks for years, isn't enough. Slowing bleeding from financial death isn't enough. You have to know when to quit, and move on, not hang on until you collapse.

That CWB bride has proven, over 60 years, she's just not right for what the farm community needs, agar.

Parsley

[agstar77]

I wish to have a rational discussion about farm problems, but I do not wish to get into a discussion with extremists who bring II world war atrocities and compare them to our present situation. This is the extreme element that has scared most voters into keeping the liberals in power and kept the reform party out. I could support a more conservative government if I can be assured that the extreme elements are not allowed to control the agenda.

[silverback]

Just answer the questions.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77;

If Canadian farmers had the same support as US grain farmers... what would the economic result be?

If a truthful analisis is done... land prices rise; and base economics don't change over time... the subsidies are capitalised into the value of the productive assets.

Grain prices will go up and down... they always have and always will. If a manager does not appreciate this part of farming... perhaps that person should go to work on an hourly wage and not have to worry about this factor!

There are tons of high paying jobs in western Canada right now... if a person is actually willing to work, there are a world of high paying opportunities!

[parsley]

Agstar77,

Can we agree on the following?
1. This forum has consistently reflected that farmers do not get enough revenue from wheat/barley.
2. Farmers’ income from wht/bly for the past 60 years has not kept in line with other industries.
3. The CWB claim they are the sole marketer of wht/bly.

I am an extremest and this is why:

a) I look for change. You crave more of the same.
b) You have not presented a convincing statistic or argument that would convince me that continuing on the same CWB path will improve farmers’ bottom lines..
c) You fail to address the questions asked, and you are not able to clearly state your position. For example, you intimate that forced participation is acceptable for your particular defined sense of “the common good”, but you don’t say it outright. What really IS the common good, agstar? By your definition only? Or your gang’s definition? Common good varies with every religion. In every language. In every country. In every business deal.
d) Just like in real life, and real contracts, and real partnerships and business dealings, one needs to know where the other person stands. What really is your stance agstar? Do you condone forced participation or not?

The problem many ‘common-gooders’ have, in making his commitment to the “forcing” philosophy, is that it is difficult to consistently apply it to everything.

You approve of jailing farmers for not going through the CWB because of the common good of pooling and equality. That particular common good meets with your approval.

But controlling the population of China via forced abortions is also done in the name of the common good, Adscam took place because of the common good, the Red Cross scandal was done in the name of the common good, conscription is done in the name of the common good, lying about how nice your wife’s new dress looks can be done for the common good of the family.
e). When is the ‘common-good’ actually bad? According to whom? And more particularly what do you do when the so-called common-good turns bad? Most have difficulty defining the latter. One can learn from history or one can screech, “Extremest” when your “forcing” philosophy is indefensible.

Remember when Ralph Klein was called an extremest because he wanted to eliminate Alberta’s debt and deficit?

You think I am an extremest because I will advocate, to any government, that they must reason and convince people, not jail and coerce them.

If you want to call me an extremest because I have a ‘non-forced participation’ philosophy towards my fellow Canadians, I am very comfortable with it. It’s called live and let live, agstar.

In the meantime, as silverback has so nicely put it…. answer the questions.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, I believe you were called an extremist because you made the unwise comparison to the holocaust.

[agstar77]

Exactly! I really am not bothered by his marketing views just irrational way they are expressed.

[silverback]

Just answer the questions.

[agstar77]

We grow wheat ,canola and oats. As for getting a competitive price, probably not since world grain trade is controlled by a few vertically integrated multinationals. If you wish to sell your crops at some point no matter how clever you think you are, they will tell you what price you will receive. I am not saying this is good or bad just the way is. For you free market types to insist you can beat these guys !! Perhaps one time or another you will but like in Vegas the house always wins. If we could produce a crop nobody else could we could get those premiums, however since my wheat is as good as yours, the only way you will out market me would be to sell at a lower price. Yes if we had an American style support program all our costs would rise . At least we would be treated equally to U.S. farmers. No one should tell you what to grow and you do have a choice to work on those oil rigs as T4CWB suggests and not grow anything. It seems the answer might be for a lot of us to grow nothing to stop the bleeding. Good nite.

[parsley]

The main point of this discussion is not about how you react to my communication skills.

"Extremest" and "racist" are terms frequently dragged out as an abortive response, by those lacking adequate defenses, or their inability to concede a point, or unwilling to admit what they really stand for.

It would be no surprise if someone like Mr. Merimee, France's Past Ambassador to the UN, would scream "Extremist" or "Racist' at the first hint of being accused of his involvement in the Food for Oil scam.

It's an obvious ploy.

But, just so you don't get sidelined one more time, I want to remind you, agstar, that the crux of this discussion is about whether or not you support force and coercion to attain and continue YOUR common good...that being throwing farmers in jail for trying to sell theior own wheat.

Just answer the question. Then we'll know what you are once and for all.

And answer silverback's question which essentially asks, in your world, does the biggest gang represent the common good?

(That doesn't look good for you either as more and more farmers abandon the CWB.)

Looking forward to you finally answering,

37 years farming,
Parsley

[parsley]

Vader,

My example is pregnant with the "common good" theme. Adolph H. would have argued with you that in his world, his common good was to rid the earth of certain groups of people.

Using coercion and force.

As I said in my earlier thread,

"When is the ‘common-good’ actually bad? According to whom? And more particularly what do you do when the so-called common-good turns bad?

These are questions you would be wise to weigh, Vader, and then answer this question,

"Is it justified to use force against farmers to maintain the CWB's common-good goal of the single desk?

Parsley