Haveapulse

[parsley]

Zaphod,
Sask Pulse:

Checkoffs are compulsory.

Period.

Either they are or they are not.

Pars

[parsley]

"They make mistakes, but they don't quit"

And the CWB would like you to believe they are moving on, right, charliep?

But it is more of the same, if you take a close look at it.

No conspiracy on my part, and just a few magic disguises and tricks on theirs to make it seem so. They are really quite open about the single desk. They justify it the best they know how. All regimes of force do just that.

But the bottome line, is there is no choice.

Some farmers will negotiate away a principle, right Zaph, because it looks like it's good at first glance.

Not soon long before it's gone awry. The CWB single desk was founded upon pooling, was it not? And how is that working, these days, do you find?

Call me ridiculous. Or paranoid. And you won't want to hear it. But it's my observation.

Every farm organization and body must provide choice. It is the only stick that disciplines. The ONLY STICK.


Pars

[Zaphod]

I realize the checkoff is mandatory. Farmers were the ones who decided to make the checkoff non-refundable.

I get your point about choice, but how does that make the Pulse Growers a monopoly? SPG doesn't control farmers' grain like the CWB does. They don't buy or sell anything so they aren't a monopoly in any way. And no, I don't work for them and I'm not a member. So there's no conspiracy here either.

[parsley]

"Farmers were the ones who decided to make the checkoff non-refundable. "


A little gang of fingers in some meeting room one afternoon just,.... ahy, let's put this so the concepualizers aren't uncomfortable with the thought of expropriating other folks' money, nasty little word, isn't it,......let me think,..... yes , ....I have it,.... DID it, right?


And you defend it?
Pars

[Zaphod]

It was based on a survey of pulse growers, not a board decision. But I'm sure that must have been fixed too.

I'm not prepared to get rid of something that's working for the sake of principle. There's an old expression about babies and bathwater.

Now the CWB, that's a different story. That's not just bathwater, there's a lot worse things than soap scum floating around in it.

[parsley]

Tell me the difference between #1 and #2 since they are both based upon compulsory funding:


1." a pretty good example of a farmer led market promotion group." Sask Pulse. Your words. Compulsory checkoff

and

2. A pretty good example of a farmer led marketing group. CWB

Either farmers build on solid principles or they have rot coming from the bottom up. Compulsory funded


Pars

[parsley]

"I'm not prepared to get rid of something that's working for the sake of principle."


yes, well they do get in the way, don't they?

Pars

[parsley]

Theres little Joey Doe, age 13, son of John Doe, who wants to be a farmer, who didn't get a vote in all of this.

His Great Grandmother was one of those bellyachers who bitched and mumbled about not getting to vote, because her neighbors kept saying, "I'm not prepared to get rid of something that's working for the sake of principle."

Yes, indeed.

But change came. From those who changed their minds because they finally understood that Great Grandma liked to get her pick, too. It is an underlying principle that every decision maker in the farm community must take into consideration when they make decisions.

Choice changes the world. For the good. And the way we view it.

Pars

[Zaphod]

It's something called practicality. It's called benefits outweighing the disadvantages. Have you ever found anything without a downside? I didn't think so. There are precious few (if any) benefits of the CWB and many costs so I would get rid of it.

BTW, a monopoly by definition involves being the only seller of a product. The CWB is wrongly called a monopoly buyer. There is no such thing. The CWB is a monopsony. The Pulse Growers don't buy or sell anything. Therefore, the word monopoly is just plain wrong.

[Zaphod]

I forgot a little piece of advice I got many years ago. Don't bother arguing with an idealogue. I'll sign off now.

[parsley]

Sometimes things don't have benefits. You just do them because they are right.

I am not going to word-haggle.

This is about principle.

You would have presented your same argument to Great Grandma. There was no benefit for you.

Parsley

[classicalliberal]

Getting back to the transfering of funds from the railways to the farm research groups, does anyone know what a revenue cap does? It is the exact same thing as price controls and they create shortages. It has happened many times in history. I never wonder why the local elevators are full because their railcars don't come, because the railways are hauling something else. I hate the railways local monopolies that they have in an area because you can't just get up, move your facility to another railway easily but I don't agree with the revenue cap. There must be a better way to keep the railways from raping us in the ass.

[wade]

Is there a revenue cap on grain only? Wouldn't a cap on everything keep things on a level playing field or should we pay more if we want the best service?

[charliep]

Don't know why but the following cartoon seemed appropriate after reading certain descriptive terminology over corn flakes.

http://www.agweb.com/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?src=RubesCartoons-TalesfromaTwistedMind&PID=fa037d66-65a0-4c1a-8100-219cc36f368d

[haveapulse]

The pulse crop levy is a very good example of mandatory collection (of .005% from the pulse crops only) has had huge results. 40 bushel red lentils and green peas that are rivalling US quality is proof that funds targeted to a goal can achieve huge results and monetary benefits.

Obviously the majority of respondents disagree with the 69 million becoming a farmer shareholder ( yes, it you would have shares identified by your 2.23$/pmt) investment fund redirected from a pool of capital (that wanna bet stays with the WGRF and you all give them less grief than you have me), but I ask which pool of capital is going to add value to ag commodities?

Does it matter if farmers have shares in value add facilties? Obviously Yorkton is proof that farmers do not need to own shares in facilities to see value add occur. So is there any value to having farmers as shareholders to value add facilties.

Are value add facilities more likely to develope with local participation?
Ie Mustard Capital as a good example.

If not with the fund, to kick start projects then how do we get there?

Should we ask the government for tax credits, after all they do give them to the movie industry and it has worked to build Hollywood north?

Or do we wait and hope for another decade and leave the same agricultural eocnomy to our kids?

We were reminded last night at our project meeting by our advisor of the reality of Shaunavon, Gardiner Dam and Tisdale, all of whom failed to get their project off the ground due to the inability to raise sufficient capital.

In three seperate communities, porsperous communities I might add.
projects had to be cancelled.

Organizors after a huge effort of volunteer time had to admit defeat.

Given the failure of many community projects, the report card on community value add, I admit is dismall to say the least.

However, we do have great success stories as well; WIT, NWT to name two.
But elevators are somewhat easier to manage (thanks in no small part to the CWB!) than value add projects.

So I ask what are your ideas of how to get the value add band wagon on the road?

I redirect the energy of the debate to the queston is value add important to the future? And if so how?