Some insight into problems with market economy

[vagabonddreamer]

i am taking a stab here at what i think is a systemic problem with the entire situation...and possibly the reason that keyensian economics is getting a bad rap from some of the anti-cwb-pro-captitalism-no-government members...

i just bet if fransisco and classylib and some of the other participants who claim disdain for keyenes and his theories...were to really examine their own ideas of how a benevolent capitalist state should operate...they would see it to be very much like fransisco's food analogy with the slight modification that that idiot vagabonddreamer added...lol...

in other words...if we were to remove the TITLE of "keynes" (and that dreaded socialistic tinge he adds)...and instead call it vagacapitalism....and drag a majority of the platform from free market theory....(which we all like)....but lace it with some health care...care for the aged and infirm (not to mention any names..lol)....and allow the DEMOCRATIC option of people forming an investment club (voluntary cwb)...it should work...

fransisco and classylib etc must realize that in MANDATING free market large "C" capitalism they remove democracy and a security blanket from those who need it...

i STILL maintain...that SOMEHOW in fransico's version of captialism...(kudos by the way to fransisco as he is the only one who has actually laid his doctrine out for all to see...the rest have just provided numbers and statistics...empirical information not really relevant to the CHANGE everyone seems to want)...there needs to be a vehicle to control intergallactic sized industry from becoming the only one involved in the industry...(smile..note how i avoided the M word)...

i just dont think it FAIR to rid farmers who NEED the CWB...the option of having the CWB...

i really would like someone...even the anti-CWB side...without MOCKERY...to explain why there is hesitancy to allow voluntary membership at this point???

i tell ya one "ting" though...i will NEVER forgo or trade my right to democracy in the name of capitalism...vs

[classicalliberal]

Let those who are failing fail and reward those who do well. This is not happening right now and it is a bunch of bullshit. Tower and Vaggabonddreamer, I question why you live in this country that lets foreign people own business, free-trade, a slightly less of a redistribution of wealth than most other countries. If you like that, exercise your Canadian freedom to leave this country and take your government running ideas and go where you will be welcome. Might I suggest Argentina or Venezuela. You and the Peronists and Chavezistas will get along great.

[AdamSmith]

vagabonddreamer,

you asked the billion dollor question when you said;

i really would like someone...even the anti-CWB side...without MOCKERY...to explain why there is hesitancy to allow voluntary membership at this point???

So as best I can without mockery, I will try and explain.

A common given reason is because without the monopoly the cwb would cease to hold market "clout" and would only become "just another" grain company, without elevators or terminals to boot. And because of this it is believed that the cwb would be at a huge competitive disadvantage which would be so untenable that it's utter and total demise would be as good as guaranteed. So it is because of this belief that a voluntary system can not even exist.

Just for the record I consider this line of reasoning to be without merit.

#1 there are many companies who buy grain or trade grain without elevators or terminals, these assets already exist to a point of overcapacity on the prairies and each and everyone one of them would happily enter into contracts to handle cwb offered grain. In fact the only difference between what happens already today and under a voluntary system is the contracts would be freely negotiated instead of forced compliance.

#2 The cwb seems to believe that it's monopoly gives it "clout" when no evidence exists to verify that claim yet there is plenty of evidence that shows the exact opposite. Yes the cwb has commissioned studies that purport to show an advantage yet not one has been peer reviewed nor is anyone other that the author allowed to see the base information in which the conclusions were derided from.

#3 IF what these supporters believe actually did come to pass, where the cwb couldn't even garner enough support and bussines for it to not even bother continuing on, Then isn't that as it should be because if so few people saw any value there then maybe there really isn't any value there after all and in the end it's not worth protecting and farmers would be no worse off in the end.

It's like them saying we need this special protection because were so gawd awful at what we do, without it, no one would deal with us. It certainly doesn't instill any level of confidence from me, yet for some strange reason it seems to resonate with others.

Now go figure that one out.

[vagabonddreamer]

adam smith...dont know whether to laud you or question your sanity for taking the time to read the entire thread...lol...thank you for the objective view...

if the CWB were to be made voluntary i cant see how there would be any ill effect for the average farmer...unless there truly was no benefit to the institution...it seems there are a very few people (a vocal minority)..that want out...if the CWB is truly a funcitoning benefit it should EASILY survive the secession...in other words the economies of scale dictate that those few farmers CANT impact the majority in a negative way...UNLESS...a majority leave...but...if that happens...it is a self fulfilling prophecy...

classylib...i never took you for a "runnist"..."there is no problem too big or small that it cant be run away from" t'aint the cowboy way...Canada is way too great a place to live to give up and run...no question there are improvements to be made...YOU are the one who hates the system here...there must be MILLIONS of countries that hold the same social/political ideas as you...let see...theres...um...uh...hmmm...o ya..no wait..not there...hmmm...rats...we're stuck with you...lucky for you Canada accepts everyone no matter how short sighted or anemic their political views...

i like your doctrine however...let the failures fail..let the sick die and reward the cream of the crop...but i am curious...in YOUR land of over achievers...WHO will prevent the foreign ownership you disdain..??

[tower]

I think we have already gone too far down the path of the simplistic economics of the CD Howe institute et al. In the name of fiscal efficiency we have caused a lot of harm to soils, water, air, and forests. There have been some steps in the right direction in recent years, but always with a strong headwind, a lot of hot air from the monetarially challenged.

We have the opportunity now to go in the direction of holistic economics. Accounting for sustainability. Basing success or failure on one aspect of life is really ridiculous. What we need to initiate is societal recognition of the value of farmland and the care farmers take of it.

The Canadian Wheat Board is one case where the pressure has been brought to bear with serious intent for the last thirty years. Fransisco, how long have you been farming? Perhaps you aren't aware of the changes brought to the CWB that long ago that have reduced the effectiveness of the organization to farmers. I'm not for the CWB as it stands now, I want the CWB to be more effective.

The CWB may have come into effect to help with the war effort, I haven't checked into that but it was modelled on the advice of farmers who went through the free market miseries of the twenties and thirties. The last time in this country that grain producers were forced to go head to head with the grain companies without the help of the CWB.

If anyone out there thinks the Board is having a rough go of it with the multinationals I'd suggest you take that as a precautionary tale before demanding to do it alone.

The pooling of grain and income is not going to be a one way street. The same farmers are not always disadvantaged, or benefitted. Low bushels per acre which might pressure farmers to sell faster in one area might be compensated by higher quality. But if a farmer has to sell quickly there isn't the ability to capture that as an individual.

If the small group of people who want out leave, not only might they be caught in that debt squeeze, but the remaining farmers would have less of a pool to support them in a case where weather reduces their returns. I can hear it already, Socialist!!!!!!! I think I pointed out that I'm not an atheist, I also don't believe in any of the isms I've seen so far. But I do believe that if there isn't co-operation amongst us there won't be any of us left.

[gregpet]

Tower, cooperation is fine. It works well for a group by Dafoe, Sk. 3 or 4 different families working together for quite a few years now and very successful at it. The CWB on the other hand is forced cooperation. Their target prices and programs are not compatible to my income needs. They cannot expect to pool my revenue stream and yet I go it alone for expenses. Make it voluntary and, if successful, they will continue into the future marketing a large part of the prairie wheat and barley crop. Why is this such a difficult concept?

[tower]

gregpet, just because a concept is simple doesn't make it correct. It is true that that the CWB has an aspect of enforced co-operation. So does hockey, medicine, and being in the Canadian Military, what's new?

The larger the co-operative body the more protection provided by the rules. Farmers allowed to drop out of the Board will be swallowed in no time flat by conglomerate farms, making the remaining farms less viable.

[gregpet]

I see Tower, just like happens in the U.S., Australia and all the other countries without a monopoly. Oh, wait we are the only country with a so called monopoly (actually monopsony). I didn't realize all the farms in the U.S. were gobbled up. I missed that one.

[vagabonddreamer]

tower...i appreciate you trying to explain...but i am still unsure as to how a minority of famers leaving the CWB will negatively affect the majority...lets use a number like 10%...in relation to the entire grain production of Canada...so...assume that 10% of farmers opted out...whether it is more or less is immaterial at this point...

i understand there is a PERCEPTION that it will weaken things for the remaining farmers...but run it through an economic model for me and show me a non-emotional and more technical analysis....thx...vs

[tower]

Run it through an economic model? why sure enough, let me run up my handy dandy modelling progams.. This may take a while. While I'm at it I'll run it through my ecologic models as well.


I think it would be a mistake to think that you can or should, delete emotion from any issue. You end up with a shallow discussion.

Farmers have seen over the last fifty years how the rise of centralized decision making, minimization of competition, and higher corporate power have sucked the life out of farming and farm families. Not just grain, but pork, beef, poultry, et al. If there is money to be made corporatism holds that corporations should get it all, regardless of the consequences.

Talk about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[vagabonddreamer]

lol...you DO have an economic model...we will call it "TOWER of power economic modelling inc"...(i always think in "inc" at the end makes it sound important)...this model is very rough and inaccurate..kind of a Tandy computer...but it makes for good conversation...all i need is some of the facts and figures to plug into our "TOWER of power" model...

-the most contentious and valuable grain that you guys grow

-the (average) world supply

-the (average) yearly CANADIAN contribution

-the total amount of farmers growing the crop in canada..

something tells me YOU mr tower have that info right at your finger tips...then it will be easy to run through the "TOWER of power" (inc) economic model (good thing it is not the vagabonddreamer economic model...that is an abacus and stone slate and hammer and chisel)...

seriously...i am just curious...i have never seen an issue that raises MORE ill feelings than this CWB thing (amongst like minded and individualistic people)...and you are right...we will leave the emotional part of in place...vs

[tower]

I think that anyone on here has those kinds of stats at their finger tips. You take wheat as the primary crop handled by the board, which is the contentious bit. But is the contentious part the high protien, #1 cwrs? or the bigger quantities of #3, or the soft white feed?

Is average world production relevant today or in five years? How do you decide what the number of farmers growing the crop are when some grow small quantities, others big? What sort of relationships exist within the industry?

I'd be curious about a modelling program that could handle the intricacies involved, and I'd be happy to work on the details, but a simplistc cookie cutter won't cut it.