How much is fair mark up on crop inputs

[silverback]

Tower,

Let's try this. Please state for the record whether you think that a farmers own production actually belongs to him or whether it belongs to the cwb.

Also, should all canadian grain farmers be forced to market their grain the way that we do in the designated area?

Simple.

[parsley]

tower,

You state lobbying is effective. Carry it a step further.

Every year, the CWB negotiates a handing agreement with the companies and mutlinationals, clearly setting out what "cut" will be sliced off the farmers' profits for services rendered.

This document is the most valuable Board grains agreement that the companies have in hand! And the CWB negotiates it!


By your inference, then, farmers need to lobby the CWB ITSELF to make a better deal on behalf of farmers, since the companies are making excessive money on the deals now in place.

ONLY the CWB is able to make the negotiation on Board grains.


Is this the kind of lobbying you are e-talking about? Would you help advocate a lower-rate negotiation?

Parsley

[charliep]

Does the government have to approve any changes to initial payments? Yes. Has to be approved by order in council (those words again). Why? Because taxpayers guarantee initial payments. Where power comes from? See CWB act.

[Fransisco]

It's competition that is a prerequisite for a healthy economy. Good grief, we're talking about how to get the best returns for our wheat here not how to run a country. When it comes to economics differences of opinion fight it out in the marketplace not a polling station.

Frankly their is nothing in this world more democratic than the free market in action.

And as long as you keep talking about putting your neighbors in jail for having a diffent opinion than yours on how to market their grain you are advocating the use of force for your own ends. You are still a bully.

[TOM4CWB]

Tower,

That was an interesting turn!

"...old right wing crap about government should be run like a business"

How else Should the PM and Finance Minister manage a half a $trillion?

Would you not run a balanced budget?

[tower]

silverback, ownership, I can see two ways of considering ownership in this context. In the first, if I am selling something, say a piece of furniture, and unlike the Brick I need some money down and regular payments until it is paid off. I still own that piece of furniture for all intents and purposes until final payment.

In the second, if I as a member of the Canadian Wheat board, not the Board of Directors, sell to the board then so long as the board still possesses it I as a member still possess it. Perhaps it's one of these new ideas floating around about taking possession by being involved.

I don't know that conditions are enough alike between a farmer in PEI and one in PA that the same board would work. It is one of those things that over a few years perhaps a determined Board of Directors could work on.

[tower]

Parsley, If the board and the multinationals have to be in a constant state of negotiation over the acceptable rates charged the board for handling I'm hazarding a guess that both sides get the most out of each agreement. Plus I don't know that grain companies are getting too much for the work and effort they put into moving grain through their system.

I think it's a good subject for us as farmers to be checking in to. What do you say we lobby both sides to get justification of their respective positions placed before the grain farmers of the designated area.

[tower]

fransisco, in the same sense that a good debate is necessary to democracy, competition is good for an economy. That doesn't mean that competition is always good for the people within a sector of the economy. If it did there would be fourty-three shoe shops in every little town across the prairies and the'd all be selling $200 pairs of sneakers that the pay $50 dollars for.

It's not me thats talking about putting people in jail, it's you, perhaps you are perpetuating victimhood.

[chaffmeister]

TOWER: “Multinationals” is a term you use; I prefer to make a finer distinction. Please take note of this earlier post of mine:


chaffmeister posted Sep 14, 2007 0:05
________________________________________
In case TOM4CWB isn't reading this, I can answer that last one.

FACT: Real life data shows that the grain companies (not always multinationals by the way) make more handling CWB grains than they do on non-CWB grains, like canola. Source is the Federal Grain Monitor Report - available on line at http://www.quorumcorp.net/reports.html

- end of post

In these debates, it is very important to be clear about what you’re talking. Cargill and LDC are multinationals; JRI and Viterra are not. In fact, Cargill and LDC are the ONLY multinationals that are involved in handing grain in western Canada. There are 37 companies licensed as Primary Elevator Operators, of which I figure 15-18 are significant players – only 2 of them are “multinationals”.

http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/Pubs/GrainElevators/invtables/06TABLE2.PDF (got to the last page)

TOWER, you keep making the same mistake as the CWB – comparing or equating the CWB to “multinationals”. They are in two different businesses: the CWB sells farmers’ grain. Grain companies handle CWB grain as agents of the CWB.

“Multinationals” trade grain globally (buy and sell and provide handling and logistics services) – they also process grain so many are customers of the CWB.
The CWB is not a “Multinational”, nor should it see itself in that roll.

TOWER, you said: “…when the grain trading takes place the buying low and selling high to consumers the multinationals can afford to take a loss in their shipping departments because their markup is so high when they sell it doesn't matter..”

Nope. Wrong again. The large “markups” you think happen – just don’t. These comments of yours tell volumes about your lack of understanding of how this market actually works.

Tower, you said: “As a broker, maybe you could provide us with information that would back that one up.”

First, I am not a broker. Never have been – pretty sure I never will be. Not sure what information I can muster for you beyond what I have already shown you. And I must admit that I am beginning to think that it really wouldn’t matter what I showed you – you’ll never be convinced.

Tower asked TOM4CWB: “you said that the multinationals can often make more money with the board in place,, is this compared to what they could and would do without the board in place? and how would you prove something like that.”

Grain handlers make more handling CWB grains than non-CWB grain like canola (this is a non-debatable fact as I’ve shown you over and over again).

“Multinationals” – those that either trade grain on the global stage or buy grain to be processed (or both) – make good use of the way the CWB sells grain (again, something I have explained here more than once.) When a large buyer of grain is “in the market”, the market generally knows about it and the market reacts by rallying. A large buyer can go to the CWB to buy, knowing full well that the market will not be aware of it because the CWB does nothing to manage price risk in the futures or cash markets. Savvy multinationals know enough to go the CWB first to buy as much as they can before they start going to the rest of the market. In other words, they know they can “pick off” the CWB.

By the way, you have not answered my previous questions so I will repeat them here:

With all due respect, could you please share what it is that you see that you think I don't.

Also, what is it in my responses or my "own evidence" that makes you feel I have missed something?

And what is it about my responses and data and facts that you find so unconvincing?

Why don't you think these costs are relevant?

Why? Why do you support the CWB and seem to turn a blind eye to the facts?

As I have said, convince me that the CWB is providing real value, and I'll argue that till the cows come home.

[tower]

thanks charliep, puts a different perspective on all the questions on here about why the boards initial payments are so low doesn't it. I presume that when the board applies for a price increase for us, that considerable thought has gone in to the benefits and costs of such a move and that they present those thoughts to the governing party at that point.

So anyone have any thoughts? is the board not making our case well enough or is there just too much fear on the governments part because of the taxpayers federation. Oh come to think of it that's where Harper came from isn't it.