National Farmers Union

[wilagro]

Simply dealing with a partner of choice who will return these "massive profits" to a grain growers own pockets... should not be a concept difficult to understand or execute... should it Jensend? Where exactly is the down side in this?

Tom, if you think that these "new" so-called partners are going to return any part of their "massive profits" to YOU, then YOU are dreaming in "TECHNICOLOR as they used to say.

These "new" partners will just be the "old" partners unchained and less regulated than before.

[craig]

Wilagro
I'm still looking for that partner who is willing to return these massive profits to me. When it comes along I will give it my total support. Your squeeze me till I die theories are not something new. If they were totally true all non board grains would be long gone.

[jensend]

i guess what it comes down to is how many choices do you need to have a price efficient market where profits are distributed 'equitably' through the value chain. i maintain it will take more than one or two more choices than farmers (or ranchers) have now when it comes to buying inputs or selling production. i really don't know the solution but if you look at the history of farming it is not going at all well (on an industry basis) and shows no sign of changing. the reason there is not more choice is that concentration of ownership gathers its own momentum and once there are few enough choices the farmer finances all the takeovers that have occurred in the recent past. the competition that takes place is not on the basis of price but rather who can get interim financing to eliminate the competition; then the farmer is forced to finance it. the real pity in all this is that when there is no competition there is less incentive for innovation and market development. we see this in the cattle industry now don't we? why not bse test to open markets - because the people who control the market now don't want it.

[wmoebis]

Just for interest!
If we could split end value of commodities fairly and equitably split from producer to end consumer what would those %ages look like?

Barley to Beer
Producer gets% grain buyer/handler% transportation% maltster% brewer% retailer% and everyone else involved.

What is it now? Has anyone ever come up with such figues?

[TOM4CWB]

wmoebis,

I believe the Sk. Pulse Board has done some work and comparisons in the last few years on this subject. Gate to Plate 1, I believe had some of these comparisons, I don't see it on the SASK Pulse site any more. Gate to Plate II has some very good info @ http://www.saskpulse.com/news/latest_pulse_news.php?detail=63
http://www.saskpulse.com/media/pdfs/Final_Report__Posted_to_web_etc._.pdf

[Fransisco]

Parsley made some good observations in her above post which starts like this.

<blockquote>posted Mar 3, 2007 8:33

jensend, I agree with you that the NFU are trying very hard, and that they have identified what some of the problems are, but I don't think they have identified what causes the problems.</blockquote>

I really don't pay much attention to the NFU. Apart from the obvious that they don't represent farmers are not national and are not a union, they have only one tactic which can be summed up in two words. <b>Class Warfare.</b>

One doesn't have to read very far into the [URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/"]communist manifesto[/URL] to find the kind of wording, tactics and goals regularly espoused by the NFUer's.

They are not interested in making money their philosophy doesn't believe that it is possible. That's why their focus is on taking money from other people. Their whole economic theory is premised on -theft- anyone who has money didn't make it, or come by it honestly, therefore it is okay to 'take it back' or give it to someone more deserving(usually themselves). That someone else has money and they don't is enough reason for them to take it. It is literally that simplistic for them.

They have a vision for agriculture in Canada, a very old vision, that has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried, but it is theirs none the less because this time it will be good, this time it will be right, this time we will have the right people in charge, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

Just heard a very simple principal... again... that sums it all up...

Part of our "work" as grain growers... is to uncover which market and partner is best suited and will prosper our families and team members skills, resourses, gifts and farm the best.

This very simple principal:

If you don't work, you shouldn't eat...

IMHO THis says it all!

B.T.W. In this definition, Confiscation of a neighbours property is not considered work... it is theft!

[BarleyGuy]

Jensend/wilagro

If the CWB has been doing such a good job of looking out for western Canadian farmers interests and they are the only thing standing in the way of US multi's taking over Canada, how is it that virtually all of our barley and wheat processing industries have already been taken over by US multi's under the CWB's watch?

[wilagro]

BarleyGuy: Only the federal government has the authority to okay foreign investment including take-overs, whatever. The Foreign Investment Review Board used to half-assedly look after Canadian interests, but Mulroney (may he hold his head in perpetual shame), virtually killed this board's power and it now meekly okays the majority of foreign investment in Canada without a whimper.

The CWB had NO power to stop foreign control of our grain processing industries.

So blame the bloody FEDS if we have no domestically owned industries to speak of.

[BarleyGuy]

Wilagro:

True the CWB has no veto power over foreign investment, but I wonder why these large multinationals would be so eager to invest in Canada and put their capital at risk if the CWB is exerting their single desk power to maximize returns for farmers when they could have put those funds to work in freer market environments.