The dreams of a free market die not with a bang but with a sad pathetic whimper

[allspice]

Hopper, I have absolutely no allegiance to any political party. I am not suggesting we would be any better off with any of the others, but your suggestion that 45% were being bullied is exactly what happens when majority rules. The other option is anarchy. I agree with TOM that the bloc should not even be allowed to stand as a federal party because there is nothing "federal" about them.

I repeat that i am not a die hard CWB supporter, but neither do I support a prime minister who muzzles the CWB so he can advertise his position at taxpayers' expense. Neither do I support a prime minister who removes a senior CWB official for no better reason than he vehemently disagrees with him. The list goes on ... Will you personally guarantee that Harper would not be a bully if he was in a majority situation? The only thing that saves him from that definition is that "technicality" you mention. Regarding the barley vote, you can interpret and 3 way vote however you want. I will respect a yes/no vote regarding the CWB single desk. You obviously only read Mr Harper's interpretation of that vote. 13.8% wanted only open market while 37.8% wanted only the CWB. 86.2% wanted a combination, or only the CWB, while 62.2% wanted a combination or no CWB. 48.4% voted for a combination. Where is your majority? You cannot certainly say anyone had a majority because you have no idea how people would have voted in a fair yes/no vote.

[chaffmeister]

Allspice:

You know not of what you speak.

Where does the figure of “55% of CWB supporters” come from? When we talk of CWB reform, we are only talking about getting rid of the single desk (but you knew that because you talk about a voluntary CWB). Keep that in mind when you talk about the different options.

Your math doesn’t add up. To get your 86.2% that supposedly wanted “a combination”, you are adding those that want the CWB just as it is (supporting the single desk) and those that want an open market including the CWB (supporting a voluntary CWB – which by definition means definitely NOT supporting the single desk). You can’t add these two to get where you went. Totally illogical.

Your 62.2% number is the number that wants to get rid of the single desk - they only differ in their approach of whether the CWB should actually play a role. But they agree on the key issue - NO SINGLE DESK.)

The last survey the CWB has done and made public shows only 42% support the single desk on wheat and 27% support it in barley – with the “three way” question. As for your “fair yes/no vote, 57% supported the single desk in wheat and 40% supported the single desk in barley.

The US trade actions on wheat (all of them) have been against the CWB, not Canadian exports. Period.

A voluntary CWB would not need export terminals. I’ve heard of a company in Europe that has no physical assets but trades more malt barley than the CWB. By your logic this shouldn’t happen. But it does – more than you might think.

I like facts. Preferably indisputable facts. What facts do you have that support your comments? I’m not asking what you believe. I’m asking why you believe it.


BTW – there’s much more to the firing of “a senior CWB official” than you apparently know.

[Kodiak]

allspice,

You and I share a disdain for bullies. Bullies are people who have a predilection for abusing others until they think and behave just like they do. Unless you believe what they believe and are part of their system of enforcing their beliefs, you can become a target of their tactics when in any way they deem you to have threatened them.

So I have some questions. What would you call a group who insists, despite your objections, on controlling aspects of your life and your business which you would like to control yourself? What would you call an organization who forced you to participate and comply - using your property - in their schemes and enforcement techniques when you prefer or need to operate on an independent level? What if you had to pay them to be part of their scheme, and pay them more if you wanted not to be part of it? What if that organization was even legally able to use intimidation and harassment tactics to force your compliance in their schemes? Would that not be a “legal bully”? Would the government then not be in a situation where they were complicit in the bullying? What would you think of a Prime Minister and his government who tried to deal with that organization in a way so as to remove its power to bully?

A second part to this. I assume you want to operate your farm business and take advantage of opportunities to bring you and your family a better future. But what if your neighbours decide collectively that they don’t want you to do that. What if by their actions they force and subject you to the enforcement tactics of the organization I describe above? Aren’t they bullies too?

One final question for you. Where do you fit in the picture above?

[cottonpicken]

Substitute the word bully to politician in kodiaks above statement.

And thats how i feel.

Why pick on the bloc?

Their fighting for themselves.

Why dont we have a regional party fighting fo us?

Does that couple of times of year when you here o'canada make you teary eyed enough to think insanely that the east coast of canada is super important to your day to day activities and it really makes a difference that we all fly under one banner?

Or does this nationalist fever come from hockey night in canada?

And if you ever descide to play "hardball" with the wealth sucking eastners-trust me your going to want a few bullies on your side.

[TOM4CWB]

Cottonpicken,

I challenge you to get around our great nation... I took the George Morris Centre CTEAM training... and learned a great deal about Canada.

We DO have the greatest nation on earth... PERIOD.

AND this nation is worth fighting for... a conclusion those who fought the many wars that were fought... and a huge number died for... the freedom you and the Bloc claim as your own.

You are clearly entitled to your opinions... as are those in the BLOC who have vowed to destroy Canada.

I don't feel one iota guilty... in defending the honour of those who have shed their blood and died for our nation... to allow us to be in the position we CAN even be having this debate now!

When I was younger... I did think as you did... and I understand why. I went to hockey games in the late 1990's... where I could not sing our Canadian anthem... because I was so angry and frustrated because of what our security forces did to me... and the deception and intimidation used by the CWB... to shut me up... because I am a real and present threat... that knows the corruption they cling to... to maintain power.

I certainly welcome your questions... they are not unreasonable... in fact my dear better half... and many of my neighbours do agree with you!

We can grow... and learn... as our life experiences... gather in our souls... and change who we are!

[haveapulse]

Every day the market competes for grain. Loyalty is two cents deep in any other commodity other than wheat and malt barley, where most farmers on any given day (year) cannot even tell you the price of either.

The final payments of last year
should have had even the board supporters enraged at the opportunity cost of the board. Our grain clearly was not orderly marketed through out the marketing calendar year or the average return would have been much higher.

We as farmers under the CWB (not even called the Western Wheat Board which it is) in the west are victims of inequitable treatment in ours otherwise democratic country, by parliamentary rule. Harper promised to remove this and then decided not to bother. Why because the CWB serves Canada and the industry well. This he learned. End of story.

Harper stood on the grounds of freedom for western farmers, and he has abandoned us.

Our patriotism and our party loyalty enables even our own to disregard the basic human rights they once stood for.

Policians do it all the time, they trade principle for power.

Therefore i note I am patriotic, but patiotism should not require me to be
a patriotic fool.

[agstar77]

So how would you suggest the CWB market all of your grain at the high price of the year?

[silverback]

Nobody with half a brain would as.

How about we let individual farmers decide what is their "high price" and maybe even forward contract so they can plan ahead just a teensy bit?

[agstar77]

Gee I have seen a number of people on this board suggest that, interesting.

[charliep]

Are you suggesting the current board of
directors/operations side are considering full cash
pricing within the single desk system? A return to
the wheat daily price contract. An wheat equivalent
to the malt barley cash plus? Comments about the
CWB malt barley cash plus program/targets for
participation are on page 4 of the Jan. 23 Western
Producer.

I look forward to your comments on the 2007/08
annual report with attention to the CWB
performance measures (page 43 in the 2006/07
report) in the CWB attempt to measure their ability
to get a better average price than a farmer with the
ability to make their own marketing decisions.