Corner&Conquer

[agmaster13]

"If the single desk is so effective and gets so much money, where can the farmer find that money?"

Never in any of my posts did I ever argue that the single desk is effective or beneficial.

I was only trying to point out that managing supply of a commodity with a marketing board will not happen unless you can stop others from selling the same commodity into the market.

[parsley]

agstar13,

Reading your posts, I would never presume you owned this argument.

The argument is owned by farmers who are opposed to the single desk. It can include you if you would like, though.

I simply asked you to aggregrate the questions of those 'choice farmers' who have untiringly asked the same question again and again and again.
BTW, here it is again, if you missed it:

"If the single desk is so effective and gets so much money, where can the farmer find that money?"

You missed both points.

Parsley

[agmaster13]

I think that your (everyones) question has never been answered to any degree of satisfaction is because it simply can't be answered because all farmers are different.

All of the work that has been done on the single desk (both for and against) assumes that all farmers are the same (homogeneous). Which we all know is incorrect, but in order to draw any inferences at all it is an assumption that is still used. This assumption skews the results of both bodies of work.

Is it effective? I think it may be effective for some farmers and for others it clearly is not. Whether or not minority rights should trump majority rule is why it is such a contensious issue in the first place.

[parsley]

You've just said (very eloquently, I might add)that because economists have adopted, and continues to employ methodology that skews results, they do not do studies on farmers' returns.

I presume the CWB's U os S studies should all be put in the old biffy.

Parsley