100 posts cont.

[AdamSmith]

Vagabondreamer said;

adamsmith...YOU seem at least capable of a view on both sides....i realize you favour voluntary...if 10% of farmers opted out given the choice...do yo suppose it would damage the integrity of the status-quo CWB..given the world market...

Adam replies;

10% of the wheat opt out, no difference in the execution of prairie grain movement.

but here is the rub vdreamer, 10% would probably account for significantly more than 10% of the grain. But with that said it still should not impact the actual movement and sale of grain off the prairies.
Here's why, the cwb only moves paper, the grain co's and the rr do the actual work, so what would change even if 1% opted out is that the relationship between the cwb and all others (farmers,grain co's, rr's etc.)would change because nolonger would the industry (see above) be at the mercy of the cwb's directions. The foundations would shift from forced compliance to mutual benifit.

So this is why the cwb and it's supporters refuse to even accept a limited opt out. To them it's all or nothing because the cwb is not, I repeat, NOT in the grain business. The CWB is in the CONTROL business. This is what it is all about because the supporters and believers truly believe that the CWB's ability to intervene and control things somehow protects them from the "vultures" lurking out there whose main and only goal is to impoverish them.

The cwb is their white knight, keeping them safe from all perils, known and unknown.

The thing I still have't figured out for sure is are these people more afraid of the known or is it the unknown which terrifies them? Irregardless these are the deep seated reasons why this issue has become so polorized.

In my mind I see a voluntary cwb as serving their legitimate needs so long as the cwb continues to act as a professional third party marketer for those who make that choice whether that be 90% of farmers or 20% of farmers.

But controling the entire industry and all wheat and barley farmers is NOT a legitimate need.

Won't be able to reply for a couple of weeks as we are going "spring breaking down to Southern California"

Maybe you AVers could fix this wheatboard thing while I'm away! wink, wink.

[classicalliberal]

Something I have always wondered is that the CWB figures that if people involved in the wheat and barley trade/processing were to have open markets that they would lose their self-proclaimed abilities to get premiums, etc, etc, etc.
What is the difference between someone selling their wheat or barley in the domestic feed market where the CWB does not have anything to do vs. people FREE TO CHOOSE where to sell the grain and how to use it?

Wouldn't that be the same thing?

[vagabonddreamer]

so in effect adamsmith...you are saying that THE 10% of farmers who want out...contribute SIGNIFICANTLY more than 10% of the grain???

am i to understand that the CWB has no "real" assets in the form of infrastructure???

classlib...i see where you are coming from re the difference between open market and marketing through CWB...

tower writes with particular passion with respect to the value of the CWB on an emotional level...using ecological concerns...but i dont see the ecology as being part of the CWB mandate as it stands now...true that it COULD be an important factor...but the CWB does not control the farming METHODOLOGY righ now is that correct???

there doesnt seem to be a business case for NOT allowing voluntary membership...it shouldnt matter whether you are marketing 1 bushel or 1 million bushels...if you are cost effective and provide value for your members through return on investment...they will stay members...

there seems to be quite a bit of rhetoric re "losing competetive advantage"..but no one has actually explained the machinations...how that will work...how the loss of even 50% given the context of the world market...will effect competetive advantage...

what WOULD be the difference...if the 10% that want out...suddenly stopped growing CWB administered grain?? would the CWB cease to exist as an entity??

i really try to have an open mind...i keep hearing the people who want out of the CWB mumbling things about votes based on farmed acreage or production...but SURELY you understand that CANNOT happen as it goes against the very principles on which democracy (especially our infantile democracy in North America) is based...but this very much applies negative leverage when it comes to democratic voting...

it seems that the CWB should be a voluntary organization for two main reasons...there is No real business case for NOT allowing voluntary membership...and democracy is being used as a form of control in this case...ie...if all the people who wanted out...went on vacation for the next 10 years...and DIDNT grow CWB crops...(instead they sold their land to me so i could build a giant theme park)...the CWB would not lose any "percieved advantage"...

this is JUST being thrown out for civilized discussion...CPearson...can you shed some light on this??? vs



CPearson...can you shed a little light on this??

[charliep]

Not sure the question.

I note the question about assets and highlight the balance sheet on page 74 of the annual report. $5.5 bln of assets (all cash and investments) and $5.3 mln of liabilities. Undistributed earning $200 mln. Previous year $14 mln (mostly contingency fund).

Perhaps what the CWB needs is a real equity base and the ability to grow it through operations (profit). If the CWB were to have an equity base established through government investment (likely still farmers as money invested in lieu of other payments) and/or investment by farmers, would the simple cooperative model still work (one share/business unit) versus likely some type of new gen coop structure (equity and voting based on usage/investment)?

Doesn't get discussion here (I assume because nobody cares) but will note the implications of the loss on the contingency and who picked up the tab. Both users of the PPO programs and the pooling system have been innocent by standers. In most systems, the overall operations/business side would have picked up the tab (net drawdown on owners equity) and would have been held accountable for this.

My two bits realizing likely off topic (haven't followed the 100 posting that carefully - too slow to load the threads even in my high speed world).

[charliep]

should be $5.3 bln (not mln) of liabilities.

[charliep]

Intereting note but none of the audited financial statements was included in the newsletter version of the information presented at the district. You could by the way obtain a full annual report at these meetings. I note there is a difference between what is presented in the annual report prior to page 73 (information prepared by the CWB operations side) and from page 73 on (audited statements prepared by Deloite and Touche).

[Fransisco]

It's been a while since I've been able to get back to the topics on this thread and unfortunately I don't have much time again but thought I'd throw this in the mix.

There was some talk about finding a mix between pure socialism and pure capitalism. That too has be tried, is being tried and it also has a name, Fascism.

http://www.econlib.org:80/library/Enc/Fascism.html

"Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it…. Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities."

Check out the link for more detail.