Who can market to Bogasari Flour Mills in Indonesia

[Vader]

wedino

It's hearsay. Doesn't make it so! It is simply outside the CWB legislative mandate to purchase grain outside of Canada.

Once again this is an instance of trying to change the facts to suit your opinion.

[chaffmeister]

Sorry for the length here and sorry for the time lag since this thread was started. The following is a series of excerpts from Flaman’s op-ed piece in Star Pheonix each followed by my reaction.


FLAMAN SAYS:
‘Choice’ doesn't confer marketing advantage
……WRONG
……‘Choice’ means competition. Competition means best prices and lowest costs. Sounds like an advantage to me.


FLAMAN SAYS:
The companies are free to compete on basis levels, grading, trucking premiums and handling charges. (on CWB grains)
These competitive factors will continue to exist with or without the board. This certainly represents choice, but it's not marketing.
……MISLEADING
…...Farmers want choice – which means they want competition for their product. They EXPECT good prices, low costs, and appropriate market signals.


FLAMAN SAYS:
How many more choices do we need? Converting the CWB into a small under-funded grain company without facilities will add nothing to this equation.
……MISLEADING
……In this debate Flaman and the CWB see the CWB as a grain company. In a “choice” market the CWB should act as a “marketer” of grain for farmers who want that option, negotiating competitive handling services with grain companies. As the representative/marketer for a large group of farmers, it would have substantial clout.


FLAMAN SAYS:
A few farmers want to export their grain directly to end users. This is marketing, and it's costly if you take it seriously.
……WRONG
……A large number of farmers want CHOICE. From what I gather they have seldom – if ever – talked about direct sales (except the organic guys). They recognize that competition between buyers will give them market prices and low costs.


FLAMAN SAYS:
The CWB is excellent at marketing and does it to more than 70 countries. It spends a lot of money on market development and promotion of branded Canadian products, and has a world class reputation.
……MISLEADING
……This is meant to make you think that nobody but the CWB does market development. You know the argument. Do away with the CWB and kiss "market development" good-bye. Well, that’s just wrong. Ask the Canola Council or Pulse Canada if anyone else does market development. Also, many AE’s are involved in market development of CWB grains – at least until the CWB does an end-run on them and goes direct.


FLAMAN SAYS:
Some individual farmers invest time and money to promote their products with end users as well, but these efforts are not in the same league as CWB's.
……MISLEADING
……This may be so, but not at all the issue here.


FLAMAN SAYS:
Out of 65,000 farmers in Western Canada, only an extremely small number demand this opportunity.
……WRONG
……It may be that only a small number demand the opportunity to direct market, but the vast majority is demanding the choice of who they deal with. And most of them would like to be able to choose between a revamped CWB and other buyers. Flaman should read the 2006 Producer Survey by the CWB.


FLAMAN SAYS:
Farmers who've identified such opportunities regularly use producer direct sales and are able to combine it with other CWB producer pricing options to capture market volatility and manage risks.
……MISLEADING
……To the uninitiated this makes it sound like there’s so much opportunity within the CWB system. That’s just wrong. PDS and PPO contracts do not allow entrepreneurial farmers to capture the benefits of an open market. To suggest otherwise is a lie.
......Mr. Flaman: why would anyone want to "capture market volatility"?


FLAMAN SAYS:
Competition among a number of sellers to sell the same product does not drive up its price. The lowest bidder makes the sale.
That is why consumers, including farmers, highly favour competition. In this case the consumers are the millers, bakers and maltsters in countries with whom CWB does business. Competition in a marketing choice environment won't be good for farmers.
……WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
……In an openly competitive market (as is much of the global grain trade), buyers compete with other buyers. Why is it that the CWB only talks about sellers competing with other sellers? The competitive interplay between multiple buyers and multiple sellers disciplines both sides of the market setting the scene for lowest possible costs. (How many times and in how many ways do we have to say this?) COMPETITION KEEPS COSTS LOW.
......The CWB system doesn’t have this competitive discipline, also the costs have been shown to be much higher on CWB grains.
……So guess what? Competition DOES NOT drive the price lower (as Flaman and the CWB would want you to think) but it DOES drive the costs lower. Would someone over at the CWB please DO THE MATH.


FLAMAN SAYS:
If the CWB is in competition with Cargill and ADM, it's no longer in the board's best interest to invest in market development because competitors would capture the value it creates by using farmers' money.
……WRONG
……The CWB has invested in market development in various markets over the years. Take for example, Algeria for durum. The CWB has spent a great deal in market development in Algeria. If Flaman’s arguments held, wouldn’t our competitors in France and the US “capture the value” of the CWB’s efforts? The answer is NO. Clearly the Algerian prefers buying from the CWB because it has developed that relationship. Well, ok, the CWB sells at “preferential prices” too but I think the Algerian would still buy from the CWB at “market prices” because they prefer the relationship (the outcome of market development). In other words, all else the same, buyers tend to prefer to buy from the guy that developed the relationship. Guess what, Flaman – it happens all over the place.
......So, in a competitive market, if the CWB did its job at developing a market (relationship) they would remain the preferred seller. You can’t argue that part of the value of the CWB is its relationships and then argue that in a "choice" environment the relationships would be meaningless.


FLAMAN SAYS:
Under marketing choice, the CWB must depend on competitors to buy and move grain because it has no facilities. It will be difficult for the CWB to add value when the multinationals rake off all the profits for their shareholders and set handling charges for farmers who deal with the CWB.
……WRONG
……Here we go again. If it had a competitive pricing scheme and relationships with buyers, the CWB would be able to negotiate effective and competitive handling agreements (it’s called competition).
……Competition has driven handling costs down in non-CWB grains. Wouldn’t it be a good thing to have the same in CWB grains?


FLAMAN SAYS:
This is the marketing choice which is the substance of the debate. If farmers understand that, the choice they'd make would be to continue to use the board as their marketing.
……WRONG
……46% of the farmers the CWB surveyed want marketing choice – they are EXPECTING the CWB to provide some competition.


FLAMAN SAYS:
In the federal government's barley plebiscite, the preferred option is clearly identified with special wording that starts with, "I want." The alternatives start with: "The CWB should."
……INTERESTING
……The government “preferred option” as Flaman describes it is also the farmer “preferred option” – 46% told the CWB last May that they want the “dual market” option.

[chaffmeister]

There's more..........


EVADER SAYS
Even today a lot of people probably think that this whole debate is about whether you can get in your truck and haul your grain to the states for a higher price.

……Evader, if you think that you are in a very small minority. Also, it confirms you haven’t been paying attention.


EVADER SAYS
If you want marketing choice you have it.

How condescending! Evader, if you think that marketing choice is currently available, don’t you wonder why people are still screaming for choice?

Beyond the simple freedom to choose, those that want marketing choice want three things:
1. Appropriate market signals.
2. Low costs.
3. Access to market prices.

The CWB has failed on all three. It’s as simple as that.

[Vader]

chaff

Divide and conquer!

[chaffmeister]

“What you don't see with your eyes, don't witness with your mouth.”
— Jewish proverb

[mustardman]

I thought that was a great article by Rod Flaman in the Star Phoenix.

By the responses on this thread it seem to have hit a sore spot.

It seems Rod is open minded enough to change when the facts are presented.

I wonder if some of you would have the intelligence and integrity to do the same.

Or would you just go on like Mr. Chatenay and argue that black is white.

[parsley]

In February, 2001, Director Rod Flaman circulated a paper throughout the farm community and he titled it "The CWB Monopoly is a Hoax."

This paper was written, while Flaman still looked at the single desk through the eyes of a farmer.

Today, Flaman views the single desk through the eyes of a farmer on the CWB payroll.

Before he was elected, Flaman adamantly argued that the single desk exists only because an in-house Wheat Board policy allows it to exist.

Flaman argued that the single desk exists soley because farmers in Western Canada cannot get export licenses.

He knew that CWB legislation does not impose the single desk; that the single desk is there because of Wheat Board policy.

Think of the CWB Act just as you would the Elections Act.

National elections legislation says that every Canadian over the age of 18 will be provided with a voting ballot.

What if some Canadians were not?

What if the Elections Canada Board of Directors came up with a scheme to not issue any ballots to Western farmers?

Then the Westerners wouldn't have a ballot to put in the box, the same as a farmer does not have an export license to present to Customs.

That's what the CWB is doing....not issuing licenses, and Flaman understood it well.

That's why Flaman postured to sue the CWB, for a lot of money He knew he could win.

Here's part of what Flaman states in his paper:

QUOTE
"The wheat board says that they have a Monopoly and you are forced to sell your grain to them because they say you can not have other options.

You are told that you cannot buy a license for any sum of money. In fact they say that all across Canada licenses are free.

But......and this is a big one! Inside the designated area you have to buy your grain from the Wheat Board to get your "free" license.

Outside the designated area you don't.

Where does the law say that ????

It doesn't.

This is a Hoax.

And it is probably criminal.

How long will Western Farmers be discriminated against as second class citizens?"
UNQUOTE


After Flaman became a CWB director, he dropped his lawsuit, following consultations with the Canadian Wheat Board.

mustardman, Flaman's "facts" were introduced by Flaman. His opinion has changed but his facts remain on record.

Parsley

[Vader]

quite amazing that parsley can't come up with anything more substantial to support her cause than some decade old tripe from a farmer who knew nothing about the CWB and was being influenced at the time by the group of anti-wheat board radicals formerly known as the farmers for justus.

[cropduster]

And soon Vader your `elite` group will have to face some very REAL changes that condescending talk like that won`t be able to deflect!!Too bad the poor farmer you`re talking about was so SHALLOW as to not look further into the future!!

[chaffmeister]

quite amazing that Evader can't come up with anything more substantial to support the CWB than tired, old, misguided and misinformed statements of untruths.

We've heard them all before and yet when I counter them systematically with logic, all you can come up with is "divide and conquer".

I need to be convinced. And the CWB is failing at that too.