A conservative MP said

[JohnKenneth]

kamichael

i believe the cwb does sell domestically, although it is rare. it is politically problematic for them to get caught, or be publicly exposed as doing so because, due to their volumes, it drives down domestic non-Board prices.

i can't prove it, but there have been a couple of instances in the last couple of years where it looked like the cwb was selling domestically, and i've heard lots of stories about it having happened in the years before i was watching the markets so closely. last year for example all of a sudden in march, movement on no. 4 cwad picked up but no boats showed up in the lineups for the amounts the delivery call implied. about the same time, hog barns and ethanol plants had fully accepted feed durum and were bidding even money to spring wheat for it, which was way above the pro equivalent.

i don't know what the board should be expected to do in these cases. ignore the most profitable selling outlet for growers who sell through the pool?

[parsley]

kamichel,

The CWB doesn't BUY those millions of bushels of barley from farmers and market that barley TO the feed mills.

They could. Monopolies should. They don't.

Doesn't the CWB say they get the best price? Wouln't the Board squeeze more money out of the feed mills if the Board is the monopoly buyer/seller?

Wouldn't all these farmers selling barley to all those feed mills theoretically UNDERCUT each other?

So the CWB is not the only buyer purchasing feed-barley from the farmer. The mills buy barley for export.

Doesn't matter the form. Whether it's been dipped, sprayed, ceritified, or modified, the mills buy it directly and in competition with the CWB.

In the meantime, if kamichel wants to export his same barley, the Board refuses on the grounds that the sale will hurt Board pooling. WHAT?

Mills selling won't hurt the pools BUT kamichel selling will hurt the pools. Now, what is that for logic?

Your idea of a monopoly is the same as the Wheat Boards.

I say the CWB is not acting as a monopoly. They have allowed in multiple buyers that have unlimited access to exporting, and the farmers undercut each other according to the CWB

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Kamicheal,

If the CWB can't sell into the domestic feed market... because of the lack of discipline and market distortions they cause pushing prices lower... what does this say? What good is this type of marketing when the result of the CWB system depresses prices?

What makes us think the CWB does any better, or have a different outcome... in markets globally?

Example:

A Canadian marketer with a long term relationship with a export feed buyer needed feed wheat. The CWB found out... and every time the Canadian marketer went to the CWB... the feed wheat was priced uncompetitively. Finally the crunch came... the last offer from the CWB was tendered... and we "designated area" growers lost the sale. Australia supplied the wheat instead of "designated area" wheat growers.

What good did the monopoly do us?

Conversly a sale of feed grain was being lined up by another Canadian broker/marketer with an international enduser.

The enduser was quoted a price... it was reasonable and competitive with global values... by the Canadian Broker/Marketer.

The CWB got wind of the possibility the business was going to be booked.

Within a short time... the enduser comes back to the Canadian Broker/Marketer, and says the CWB was offering the same product for $10/t less.

The Canadian Broker/Marketer told the enduser... to go back to the CWB and bid the grain $15/t less... and see if the CWB would cut the price even further.

Guess what... they did.

The enduser would have been happy at $15/t higher values... but the CWB cut the price... because it could... the "single desk" monopoly made it all too easy.

AND

The Canadian Broker/Marketer still got the profit from the handle and shipping... the same as if the international enduser had paid the $15/t higher price.

THis happens over and over... there is no CWB market discipline... when selling from a monopoly pool with no transparent cost of sales.

Socialize the individual's surplus and you socialize his spirit and creativeness; you cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab of paint to a thousand painters.

- William F. Buckley

[hoppsing]

Actually, it should be two questions, not three. The loved the comment by the Winnipeg pollster: " these people are either incompetent or diabolical"

[TOM4CWB]

hoppsing,

Proverbs(17:26) It is not good to punish an innocent man,
or to flog officials for their integrity.

(16:8) Better a little with righteousness
than much gain with injustice;

[chaffmeister]

hoppsing:
you say two options only.

I assume you mean the "dual market" option should not be included. What about all the farmers out there that have indicated a real and sincere desire to try the "dual market"? (About 46% of them, according to the CWB.) I'm guessing that, given the opportunity, they would contract a portion of their barley to the CWB and keep a portion "open".