What to do with the railroaded over payments?

[mcfarms]

yes Thomas go somewhere near the front of the class , and I said you couldn't answer knowing you would anyways. It has alot to do with the legwork the FRCC did in their bid for the hopper cars.

[haveapulse]

TOM4, et all please continue to give us the TOMSNOTES version of the articles as I think you know the answer to reading to the end.

There are now 3 choices:
1/ return
2/ leave
3/ build

1/ return, the 1000$ I get back will not even be noticed on my farm, while most ideologicall pure, it is my belief that
1/ the pool is there
2/ the value in redireting this money into a fund targeted at value add investment projects
a/ farmer owned fertilizer plant
B/ our canola crush bio fuel project
c/ your project in your back yard.

Is that
1/ it is farmers money
2/ it has nothing to do with goverment
(although I like TOM4s idea of matching Fed and Prov funds )
3/ redirected into investment funds for value add project.

I make the case that incentives AKA subsidies have been employed since our history to create agriculture in the west (and indeed many other industries, oil upgraders, Bombardier, auto). We are all here because of incentives, the railway is here because of incentives.

2/ Leave
Research is necessary, more money for research is great.
WHAT IS THE BEST VALUE TODAY for this specific pool of money to

3/ BUILD
I beleive we need to
a/ take charge
b/ of our own diverstification
c/ identify best case scenarios to build
d/ diverify our marketplace with value add
e/ create jobs from value add
g/ reap dividends from value add.

In summary, the fund it there, returning the money although ideolgically the best, this solution offers no complex benefit to our industry. The cheque returned would
be insignificant to most farms today. As a whole, it has huge value to KICK START value add projects in the west that are farmer driven and
the investment of funds means farmers have a unique share in projects.

I spoke with the Wheat Growers today, they are debating it as a board.

I see opportunity to create a farmer driven investment fund.

I know that incentives build indusry,
the railroads (among a long list) are proof of this.


Given the 3 choices
1/ return
2/ leave
3/ build

Most farmers, i have spoken to as builders and visionary favour the latter.

[checking]

Let's talk about "haveapulse's" choice. Is it not real easy to be a suggestive builder and a visionary using someone elses resources that is telling you to keep your hands off my income. You indicate that $1000.00 means little to your farm. You do realize that $1000.00 you want to gamble away on a vision is all profit to your operation. Tell me then, what means alot to your operation, because no one is running a CWB pool here. W.P. source January 22, 2009 states," Ian Wishart, president of KAP, added the $60 million overpayment works out to $2.22 a tonne, when spread out over the 26.8 million tonnes of grain shipped in 2007-2008". We run a small to medium sized farm of 5400 acres. 2007-2008 we shipped out 5600 tonnes of durum, barley, and flax. This operation is looking at a $12,320.00 contribution to your vision. You need to write out a cheque for $11,320.00 to your building vision before I accept your suggestion.

[sumdumguy]

When the Crow Benefit was paid out in 1995 and 1996- over a billion dollars was given to someone for research, to design value-asdded flour mills, etc. Me tinks that the pigs got in the trough and I never heard who got all of that money nor one good thing that came of it. Maybe one of you super sluiths could find out where it went.

[parsley]

Don't try and pull the ol "she's not a visionary " crap on me. Humiliation horseshit just doesn't cut it with me. Neither does intimidation. Or alienation. After writing about jailed farmers, I'm damn militant about attitude these days.

1. If the scientists want research money, apply to both levels of Government.

2. If the Foundation keeps the money, they'd better prepare for reduced funding flowing in from farmers.

3. For those eyeing up the fund, make a plan, make a request, and earn the trust you seek.

Pars

[cottonpicken]

Pars,lol,

"if i ever pull a clyde i would ask you to be my bonnie"

[parsley]

cott, I'm afraid that in January, I let my mind freeze up, and decided not to take prisoners any more, so I'm afraid I wouldn't make a very good sidekick. I'm dangerous. lol Pars

[haveapulse]

Plan to Pars.
CT can be the whip.

[cottonpicken]

bonnie and clyde

If your a man robbing a bank with a woman,you want a tough woman.

[parsley]

It's the Viking stock I come from. Gone militant. Did once before.

I know what u meant, ct. But you'd get jailed or shot for sure if I was your sidekick right now.

Folks should ask for money, not just expect to expropriate it. RBC's ceo just forfeited $4M off his annual salary because of the bad mood out there. Pars

[classicalliberal]

I haven't had time to read everything in this but it sounds interesting. The railway price cap is a bad policy. If you ever wonder why your local elevator doesn't get cars, it is because the railways are over their limits and they will put their power on something that they are not regulated on or haul things like oats to the US where they are not subject to regulations. Anytime you have a price cap on something you create shortages.

Also, who's money is it. Both farmers and end users pay freight, if there is a surplus, farmers pay freight if there is a shortage end users pay freight. Maybe end users shoudl get some money as well. If you re-instate the crow rates, we will continue to rely on exports and have trade action against us because it is a subsidy. High transportation rates help to create local demand and local usage so more grain is used internally.

I have always been a believer in running rights however, I think that those who don't ship shuttle trains would be at a bigger disadvantage. It would create more competitive rates in the industry rather than the railway continuing to raise rail rates. They raised the oat tariff 25% in the past year and are continuing to do so.

With regard to running things at cost, are you nuts? Where is the incentive? Who would invest in that? The market would naturally sell at the market prices because everyone would buy from the farmer owned place that does things for cost and thus naturally force the prices up to the market rate. Under that same logic of doing things for cost so that farmers are more profitable, maybe farmers should sell their grain at cost so that the poor sods on welfare don't have to pay too much for food. Why does one group have the right to a living over another?(other than the unionized autoworkers which our government is sustaining their unsustainable wages and benefits).

This is one of the reasons why Cooperatives don't do so well when they try to sell things to their customers at cost. They end up going broke. Also, the directors have no actual ownership other than their $10 membership fee and make poor, unbusinesslike decisions.

Sorry for the rant.