What City People Really Want From Farmers!

[parsley]

Interesting exerpt from that article charliep:

"The wheat board made some money for the government, but arguably that money was what allowed the government to help farmers in times of need."

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Is CWB vote beginning of the end?

The Edmonton Journal


Saturday, March 31, 2007


It was a Conservative who first created the Canadian Wheat Board, another Conservative who made it a monopoly, so it's only fitting that it's a Conservative who seems eager to pull the trigger on its execution.

In 1917, Robert Borden established the Board of Grain Supervisors to establish a price for grain in an effort to limit volatility in a time of war. After the war ended, the board became known as the Canadian Wheat Board. In 1935 -- at the height of the Great Depression and the dust bowl -- the board was taken over by R.B. Bennett's government to ensure Western farmers a consistent and predictable return on their crops. Losses were covered by the government, and profits absorbed by it.

Now, the Harper government plans to break the seven-decade-old monopoly system based on a confusing, one-sided, and supposedly non-binding referendum in which opponents of the wheat board -- including some of the companies that stand to benefit most from the end of the wheat board monopolies -- were allowed to run a public relations campaign against the single-desk barley and grain marketing board, while the board was unable to campaign to remind farmers of the services it provides.

Even with that, only 14 per cent of 29,076 farmers (the government has not revealed how many were actually eligible to vote) chose to completely remove the wheat board from the barley market. The rest of the votes split relatively evenly between maintaining the monopoly as it is, and giving farmers "a choice" of selling to the wheat board or going it alone on the open market.

MEANT TO GIVE STABILITY TO FARMERS

The wheat board exists principally to reduce the volatility inherent in farming and to guarantee farmers a more steady cash flow. Critics of the Harper government's plan to "offer choice" say that without a monopoly, this function is virtually impossible, since non-CWB farmers taking their crops to market will always be in a position to undersell the board.

If the board is forced to try to undercut the non-CWB farmers, that will prompt a rush to the bottom, pushing prices downward -- good for the foreign buyers, but bad for Canada.

Even if the wheat board could outsell the individual farmers, it would be a ridiculous proposition for a federally owned organization to be in direct competition with other Canadian farmers. Moreover, it would also almost surely run afoul of trade law, which currently only tolerates the wheat board because it was grandfathered into Canadian trade agreements.

This likely means the only logical outcome of ending the wheat board's monopoly is for it to leave the playing field for barley. And, presumably, it's only a matter of time before the government presses for "choice" on all forms of wheat sales, with a similar outcome.

NEED FOR CANDOUR

While it is perfectly understandable that some farmers would want to make their own choices about how and to whom to sell, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl needs to be up front with all Canadians as to what this means. He should stop pretending that there is some sort of "sovereignty association" middle ground available for the wheat board.

In all likelihood, there isn't. By breaking the monopoly, Canadian farmers are venturing into unknown territory that could very well kill the board.

At the same time, the Harper government also needs to reassure the rest of Canada, especially those who live off the Prairies and in cities, that their tax dollars won't be used to prop up those less fortunate farmers who struggle to adapt and compete in a free market. The wheat board made some money for the government, but arguably that money was what allowed the government to help farmers in times of need.

The pro-market farmers expect higher returns once free of the board's monopoly, but what happens if those returns aren't realized? Will Canadian taxpayers be expected to foot the bill if farms begin to fail? And if farmers are allowed to fail, could food security in Canada be at risk?

U.S. MODEL HARDLY ENVIABLE

Even in the United States, the supposed bastion of the free market, farmers rely on massive wealth transfers from cities to the midwest, largely through huge ethanol subsidies to grain farmers and trade barriers that set artificially high domestic prices. This is hardly a model that Canadians should want to emulate.

For better or for worse, the Canadian Wheat Board has provided stability to Western farmers for nearly a century. It has proven its worth. The government's single-minded vision to dismantle the monopoly is based largely on ideology, a theory that the free market is always right.

It hasn't worked in the U.S., even though, in theory, it should have.

Strahl vowed this week to have a new "dual-marketing system" in place by Aug. 1. Before then, he owes all Canadians, especially farmers, a detailed plan for what happens if ending the status quo ends up being a tragic mistake.

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

[Fransisco]

Why is it that I keep hearing from the sore losers that one of their complaints is that the vote was 'non-binding'? But then they don't want Strahl to listen to the results.

Sucking and blowing, sucking and blowing...

[liberty]

I haven't seen so many straw man arguments in an article for ages. Let's anaylse a few of the more obvious ones:

"(Chuck Strahl) should stop pretending that there is some sort of "sovereignty association" middle ground available for the wheat board."

The writer isn't clear about what he means by this, but I'll assume he means that all talk of a CWB operating within a competitive, open market is a fantasy. Yet we have countless examples of former monopolies that do just that, such as provincial hog boards, the Ontario Wheat Board, and the CWB itself in the feed grain market. These examples are not "pretend" ones; they're actually happening.

This next quote is a perfect example of breathtaking stupidity:

"The wheat board made some money for the government, but arguably that money was what allowed the government to help farmers in times of need."

Huh? I've heard lots of cheerleading for the CWB, but until now I've never heard anyone claim that it singlehandedly generated all the funds Ottawa needed for all of the farm support programs over the years. Even the CWB itself never made such a ludicrous statement.

Since the article can't find a rational argument to buttress its case, it ends off with a well-used tactic: fear.

"The pro-market farmers expect higher returns once free of the board's monopoly, but what happens if those returns aren't realized? Will Canadian taxpayers be expected to foot the bill if farms begin to fail? And if farmers are allowed to fail, could food security in Canada be at risk?"

This writer is apparently unaware that farms have been failing on an ongoing basis for as long as anyone can remember, with or without the CWB. Once again, even the CWB itself has never made the absurd claim that the CWB has singlehandedly prevented farmers from going bankrupt.

Notice that the writer couldn't resist throwing in the old boogey-man about "food security" to try to scare readers into buying his argument.

Why the Edmonton Journal would waste valuable newspaper space with this tripe is beyond me.

[wilagro]

For better or for worse, the Canadian Wheat Board has provided stability to Western farmers for nearly a century. It has proven its worth. The government's single-minded vision to dismantle the monopoly is based largely on ideology, a theory that the free market is always right.

It hasn't worked in the U.S., even though, in theory, it should have.

Strahl vowed this week to have a new "dual-marketing system" in place by Aug. 1. Before then, he owes all Canadians, especially farmers, a detailed plan for what happens if ending the status quo ends up being a tragic mistake. - Edmonton Journal

And if it proves to be a tragic mistake, do you members of the Anti-CWB cabal have an answer???

[parsley]

The Board had to replace their typewriters with computers.

They need to change once again.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Good point Parsley.

I'd be willing to let the feds chip in for an Internet connection.

[Vader]

Parsley - another reference to the past?

Fran - childish as expected

[parsley]

Actually, becoming technologically proficient has passed the futuristic mark...in agriculture, it has become a reality.

The young snappy(s)checks his options on a blackberry at the same time he is checking his field for cutworm damage, which he also enters in his backberry after positioning the data on his hand held GPS to give to his employee, on the way to town to coach his boy's ballteam.

Ultra-management.

City folks depend upon these young smart farmers to supply food, and they have every reason to sleep easy.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

Coming from a guy whose;

1)Handle comes from a kids movie.

2)Who gets confused when there are more than two options on the table.

3)And cries for a lollipop from his Uncle Chuck, while he's kicking him in the shins, when he loses.

That really means a lot.

Have you ever heard of a mirror Vader? You should look at one sometime.