CERVUS

[pilpilsner]

http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip154175

interesting

[SASKFARMER3]

Again the super dealer is not good for farmers, Not good. No competition. This guy is happy with his 35 mill in cash but if I switch from deere to Case or Massey or cat his 35 mill is pst away really fast, he still needs farmers.

[mcfarms]

Farm right in the heart of cervus country, of the past 3 major purchases (over one hundred thousand difference each)in the past 2 years cervus has not been the winning bid on any. Out by as much as 10 percent, be sure and shop around.

[SASKFARMER3]

My experience at their one original Sask operation has been the same. Full retail minus below auction. difference is huge compared to localized dealer network.

[parsley]

Every kind of climate change changes slowly, liberty. But how to convince it to change? Would it help if the likes of Mason were to sing the oldy but goody, "Tell Laura I love her?"<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/03/editorial-by-parsley-everyone-needs.html"](Everyone Needs A Chance)[/URL]</strong></p>

[agstar77]

Sounds like he wants all out corporate farming, survival of the fittest. Time will tell if this is the path we will choose.

[pilpilsner]

The simple axiom of our command and control economy.

if it moves tax it,if it stops moving subzidize it


Ag is starting to move.

[classicalliberal]

Some of you may know my opinion on this which is that subsidies are bad and politics and economics seldom ever agree. Likely it is a political thing, certainly in the US since a large number of senate seats come from Ag producing state, the farm lobby is huge in the US. We unfortunate souls in Western Canada don't have the luxury of elected senate representatives balancing the powers of the Liberal party in the east.

I disagree with the attitude that the world owes farmers a living and that they are the chosen group which we are when you look at all the benefits we get compared to others. If you are not good at what you do then you will either barely make a living or won't make a living and have to chose another occupation which is what I agree with.

I liken this conversation to the union such as the CAW. They believe that the people in their union have a right to the job and a right to be in the particular industry regardless of weather those products can be imported or made elsewhere cheaper. They also run under the auspices of socialism where wealth is to be spread around and taken from those who create it ("The biggest problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" Margaret Thatcher) however, by subsidizing the car industry, rather than letting it go down and have those employees move to more meaningful employment only gives higher wages to the select few (union members) and takes away from the majority who are the consumers who end up paying a higher price for the products. It is kind of a reverse socialism where the socialist union people become the rich capitalists who dont want anyone else to take away their high paying jobs.

I don't believe that anyone has a right to their occupation or lifestyle....you have to earn it.

[wilagro]

Farmers wouldn't need subsidizing if they would UNITE with ONE farm organization. There is also no reason why farmers couldn't own more of their own marketing and processing businesses as well...but it is a bit late...perhaps 80 years too late.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro,

Interesting that you bring up 1930 and the context of growers working together.

Having all your eggs in one basket is a really bad idea... and the Pools really misread everything... as did most everyone else in 1930. Alberta was flat on the back... broke.

Hopefully we learned something over the last 80 years....

Even God gives us a choice... are you smarter than God?

[chuckChuck]

Classicalliberal your quote "I don't believe that anyone has a right to their occupation or lifestyle....you have to earn it". So when rich kids inherit their parents wealth and go on to build even vaster fortunes, do you consider that a case of having earned it? Or were they just lucky? Choosing your parent's is the most important choice of all.

If you were unlucky enough to be born in a developing country with poor parents and no access to education, health care, or even clean water you could work your ass off every day of the year just to survive but you have little chance of every succeding in the way that most Canadians have by being born into relative wealth. So all your rhetoric about "earning it" is meaningless to the majority of the worlds population who live on more or less nothing.

[Hopperbin]

Chuckchuck I believe inheritance is earned money. Taxes were paid and taxed again on transfer. Why should we compare ourselves to a developing country. We should be the example only.
Wilagrow what uniting are you talking about, are we going to lose market share?
Classical I believe you are more right than wrong, we could have better health care, child care, education, if everyone earned their lifestyle.

[TOM4CWB]

Chuckchuck,

What is your point?

Communism?

Socialism?

Inherentance is wrong... we should give you our wealth... or the UN... or WHO?

A very wise person said: "The poor you will have with you... always."

[chuckChuck]

Tom, perhaps you think it is okay for a few percentage points of the worlds population to control the majority of the worlds wealth and resources but I don't. Call it what you want, but the greedy executives who got us into this financial mess and economic downturn failed miserably. Perhaps you have faith in a in an unregulated free for all system that is subject to physchology of the herd, but it has proven to be unstable and a poor way to build an economy.

[haveapulse]

Define subsidy please.

While I am all in favor of survival of the fittest, I find it hard to fight with so many monkeys on our back (heck monkeys are at least helpful...) its the bag of rocks we carry that is the issue.

We nend to \
So let us define subsidy: are TUAs a subsidy? How does allowing an inefficient railroad to gouge add to our costs. We need to define the word, as it is metamorphisisng into new arenas these days. The thing needs to be dissected and charted to find where it is now entering our cost of production, before the discussion have merit.

Socialism for the rich is in vogue, these days as we use tax payers money in creative ways to support industry and institutions that would otherwise suffer the consequences of reality, and while I am prepared to be a true comepetitor I would ask for the arena to be cleared of those with their
tin cans permenantly on my payroll due to government policy or lack of government policy.

The future of our industry lies in our ability to provide a viable product to the world in competition with the world.

We cannot do this when asked to support a system that enjoys the fact we are a land locked industry
with very little cohesive voice or political control.