Some insight into problems with market economy

[Fransisco]

The answer is the same on both counts, a voluntary board would have to EARN its business by providing value to farmers. If it does this it can succeed if it doesn't it will fail.

Personally, I believe that it could succeed but that it will really have to pull up its socks to do so. The current level of service and the returns it brings to farmers are lousy. Having said that, there is nothing like having ones survival depend upon ones performance to turn things around.

[gustgd]

WOW
Charlie a new agri-ville.com record 74 posts before 'The Monopoly" was mentioned
I know you'll say parsleys not around but tom4 did comment a few times

[tower]

from the theoretical to the practical, or maybe from the sublime to the ridiculous?

The trouble that I have with the idea of a voluntary wheat board is that the grain companies are to the farming industry what the banks are to the financial. The multinational grain conglomerates have all the self preservation instincts, all the market control, and all the greed (wanting money for nothing and their chicks for free) exhibited by the banks and the car makers, and the oil companies.

Trust them to deal fairly with farmers? I don't think so.

[parsley]

Gusty, I'm here and following along. Pars

[vagabonddreamer]

tower...i am not following you...if there is a safety net in the CWB and you feel comfortable being part of it...then you are part of it...if you want to take on the multi-nationals on you own with six guns blazing...then you go that route...can you explain to me why the there is hesitation in allowing some to go on their own?? the last votes showed a clear majority of people want to keep the single desk...i am almost certain that the minority who DO want to go on their own...couldnt affect the outcome of the world grain market by ONE iota??

can you give me this insight??

fransisco...your economic model (note the lack of labelling..lol)...expanded slightly on the second draft to include a "meating" out of the government enforcing contract, preventing fraud etc...i assume you expanded on that to deal with the possibility that international contractual law (ie grain contracts) need to be enforced...you DO understand that those elements in themselves add exponentially to the size of government infrastructure...

how about health care, and social services???...yes i KNOW the present system doesnt work...but explain to me how it would work BETTER and in conjunction with your economic model with little or no government intervention??? i do have an open mind on this because the government IS botching most of this up very badly...

fransisco...(or anybody for that matter)....has there ever been a period of time in your recollection where the CWB functioned correctly and to the benefit of those it was formed with the intent to benefit?? i am trying to figure out if this is one of those "charty things" with blips of good and blops of bad...vs

[gregpet]

Tower, I think the CWB has been in self preservation mode for quite a while, more since the Conservatives have had a minority (and especially this year after the hedging loss).

[parsley]

Good Morning AVers,
I need to make one entry, lol.

G8's have learned much observing South American countries. Canada is but a pup in comparison to some of the ancient civilizations, as is Australia, but kids observe a lot of things.

I'm always impressed by Canadians who often fly into a country, often on a CUSA mission, or A Govsponsored SAVETHE09WORLD, where the tanning do-gooder stays in the top hotel, before reporting back home.

Generally speaking, people all over the world want material goods. Colored and patterned material. Fancy hub caps. The pharoahs were dressed in finery when they were buried. Air conditioned tractors. Admit it.

Greed, if you want to call it that, is inherent. We want life easier, and richer and flashier.

So do you.

So, who APPLIES FOR and gets economic aid(anyone refuse it? I couldn't find the abstinence list) so their lives are easier and richer and flashier?Here's but a few SA countries:

ECONOMIC AID

Argentina $99.66 million (2005)
Bolivia $582.9 million (2005 est.)
Brazil $191.9 million (2005)
Chile $0 (2006)
Columbia $511.1 million (2005)
Ecuador $209.5 million (2005)
Mexico$189.4 million (2005)
Paraguay$51.09 million (2005)
Peru$397.8 million (2005
Venezu$48.66 million (2005la

fyi, China $1.641 billion (FY07)

Just as the Microsoft operating system allows your computer to operate and install other programs, the mighty dollar is what makes makes democracy meaningful.... what makes freedom meaningful and what makes the economy meaningful.

If you have to beg for money, whether from another country or your province, or your spouse, someone has power over you.

Money/economic freedom gives meaning to the way we live. We are not free unless we have economic freedom. You may have a twenty million dollar farm, but if your wife cannot write a cheque, she has zero economic freedom. You may have a 70 million contingency fund, but if someone else decides how to spend the money, you have no power

Countries are the same.

Maybe Hugo Rafael Chávez's direct call to the President of Chile, for example, is a great way to do business, but only if ALL Chileans themselves are able to access the same contacts, and buyers and way to do business, will the country thrive.

Leaders have self-interest, too.

"Don't go to Cuba.They have no freedom." says Joe

" Ah, but they can vote," Glumpy says.

" And they escape whenever they can." says Joe

Money allows people to DO stuff. Anyone who tells you otherwise, well, I won't even go there.

Ask yourself, where would you prefer to live if not in Canada? Some of the countries' names were liberally spread around, so I looked them up, take a looksee.

Choose where you would live! And note what political system reigns in the choice you make:

Canada $38,200 (2007 est.)
Chile $14,400 (2007 est.)
Nicaraqua $3,200 (2007 est.)
China $5,300 (2007 est.)
USA $46,000 (2007 est.)
New Zealand $27,300 (2007 est.)
Brazil $9,700 (2007 est.)
Singapore $48,900 (2007 est.)
Switzerland $39,800 (2007 est.)
UK $35,300 (2007 est.)
Hong Kong $42,000 (2007 est.)
Australia $37,500 (2007 est.)

http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html

Look up the rest of the SA countries.

Do it.

The proof is always in how many plums are in the pudding.

Parsley

[Fransisco]

After all of the so called problems with the multi-nationals tower mentions they can still do the job for a buck-a-bushel cheaper than the 'peoples' board.

Dreamer, I don't think there is ever a time when the board really worked in the farmers favour. Originally it was part of the War Measures with it's purpose being to supply the war effort with cheap grain. Maybe it worked for farmers in the period shortly there after but I'm sceptical. It's never worked for me in my lifetime.

I'll try to get back to your other questions later on in the day.

[AdamSmith]

Whew! I can't believe I read this entire thread.

Now where to start?

Dreamer, love your writing style, I hope you continue to post here.

Fran, as always you write with reason and passion, don't stop.

Tower, what is ridiculous is that you actually think the cwb protects you from the the grain companies, ha!

Take a big wild guess who was squeezing the cwb last year in the March Minniapolis contract and walked away with millions of farmers dollars? Hmmm? This shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out. Remember were talking about short positions in excess of $250 million, short positions that the cwb couold not deliver upon.

Just who in the wheat business would have the knowledge of what the cwb was doing and the pockets deep enough to take advantage of them? I just wonder? was it C......? or J..?

But hey, dream your little dream all you want, it only costs farmers millions each and every year.

[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?