US Dumping Corn in Canada?

[August1991]

Should only people from outside the farming industries decide government farm policies?

When the authority of the government is being used, then I guess we all should somehow have a say.

Canada's current government farm policies result in a forced transfer of money from consumers to producers which, in the case of dairy farms, amounts to a subsidy (welfare is a better word) of about $120,000 per farm. So, yes, I think people outside the farming industries should decide how their money is used. For myself, I would prefer that money went to children in difficult families rather than to rich farmers.

[jdobbin]

Should only farmers decide government farm policies?

Should only government decide farm policies?

[blueblood]

Should only people from outside the farming industries decide government farm policies?

When the authority of the government is being used, then I guess we all should somehow have a say.

Canada's current government farm policies result in a forced transfer of money from consumers to producers which, in the case of dairy farms, amounts to a subsidy (welfare is a better word) of about $120,000 per farm. So, yes, I think people outside the farming industries should decide how their money is used. For myself, I would prefer that money went to children in difficult families rather than to rich farmers.

To answer my own question the minister of ag should have a farming background but should work closely with the minister of finance/treasury board pres. (who should have a background in financial affairs) to ensure the fairest policies.

You must also remember that farmers themselves are taxpayers too, and we pay a higher amount of tax than the average Canadian, we should have our say too. If the dairy farms are in fact getting a direct government subsidy, I will in fact say that is not good they can control the supply like OPEC does. The forced transfer of public money is no good as there is not enough public money to fix the "crisis" It is too much a burden on the taxpayer and I would be a hypocrite if I wanted it. If that 120,000 dollars per farm is from milk returns then I don't see a problem with it.

If you have a problem "subsidizing" the milk producers, then imagine the problem I have "subsidizing" Monsanto, due to a law, 32 bucks an acre for seed that I have to buy every year when I could save my own, and another 16 bucks an acre for "the right to use the technology", considering I crop around 1000 acres of canola, it adds up. Due to a law they make millions upon millions of dollars doing nothing. You could say that I should stop supporting them, but then I'd say you'd have to stop buying milk products which i'm pretty sure your not prepared to do. So basically my beef is that our society is picking and choosing which industry deserves protectionist laws and which ones don't, either they all do or they all don't. In my view protectionist laws are the cheapest way on the taxpayer to bail out small businesses from the big boys.

[margrace]

Should only people from outside the farming industries decide government farm policies?

When the authority of the government is being used, then I guess we all should somehow have a say.

Canada's current government farm policies result in a forced transfer of money from consumers to producers which, in the case of dairy farms, amounts to a subsidy (welfare is a better word) of about $120,000 per farm. So, yes, I think people outside the farming industries should decide how their money is used. For myself, I would prefer that money went to children in difficult families rather than to rich farmers.

Please expain to me what this subsudy is, exactly how is it paid to the dairy farmers.

[geoffrey]

Please expain to me what this subsudy is, exactly how is it paid to the dairy farmers.

Price controls (floors). It's against the law to sell cheaper and the tariff barriers are too high to import internationally.

[margrace]

If you go into a restaurant and order a glass of milk it will cost you $1.99, the farmer gets .17 of that so who is getting the extra.

[Charles Anthony]

If you go into a restaurant and order a glass of milk it will cost you $1.99, the farmer gets .17 of that so who is getting the extra.

The restaurant gets most of it. I am sure the milk-man delivery (remember those?) company who leaves the bottles at the restaurant door-step wants a bit of the pie too.

You can not be serious.

By limiting trade (quotas, tariffs, quality standards, memberships, etc.) the domestic milk industry makes less milk products available to Canadians. What happens when supply is held down? Prices are held up. That is the subsidy or welfare. The consumer is forced to pay higher prices. The farmer getting only $0.17 may seem like very little but it would be far less if the farmers did not collude.

Let me put it a different way.

If Canada was one great big family and YOU were the head of the household, would you force all of your children to buy expensive agriculture products from their siblings if they could buy cheaper produce from outside the family??

or

Would you all engage in producing what you produced the most efficiently and trade outside?

[blueblood]

Let me put it a different way.

If Canada was one great big family and YOU were the head of the household, would you force all of your children to buy expensive agriculture products from their siblings if they could buy cheaper produce from outside the family??

or

Would you all engage in producing what you produced the most efficiently and trade outside?

Would you rather not have that money stay in the family to be spent on things that the other siblings might have to produce instead of that money being gone?

The things we trade are generally what other countries don't have such as oil and metals.

Why should the market be flooded because Timmy from the city wants to save a buck? Timmy should realize that if you don't have something you might have to pay for it. I have to pay an arm and a leg for oil and diesel fuel because of the supply management scheme of OPEC, you can pay for ag products. Do you think those milk producers just bury all that money in their yards, no they spend it which helps out the economy and tax system. They might get a lot of money due to supply management, but they're spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes on top of it, it's a fair trade. We are in a trade deficit with China, we import all of their stuff and they hardly import any of ours, it costs us money and hurts our economy yet strengthens theirs, in short if we buy something from there, we don't see that money again. This money leaving Canada has got to stop.

I think the ag producing countries should form something like OPEC, boy would those oil prices fall. Nothing like cutting Iran off from our grain.

[margrace]

Letter in the Ontario Farmer Everyone else sets their price, why not us?

He goes on to ask why are we price takers and not price setters? Everyone else sets their price, either you take it or leave it.

We take all the risks, What is wrong with the farmer making a profit?

[Charles Anthony]

Would you rather not have that money stay in the family to be spent on things that the other siblings might have to produce instead of that money being gone?

No. That would make the whole family poor.

Let me put it in an other different way: when parents play favorites, the family falls apart.

However, I doubt this analogy will make any difference in your understanding. I suggest taking a high-school economics course.

Some people have it in there head that it is best to "buy local" to insure our "money stays in Canada" but that is the height of absurdity. My sister does woodworking for a hobby. Should I get her to make my bookshelves?

It takes her a year to complete one shelf and she butchers half of the planks of wood she touches.

By the way, I can only afford cheap wafer-board prices and my sister only knows how to use hard-woods.

The things we trade are generally what other countries don't have such as oil and metals.

None of that matters.

Can anybody understand what MarGrace is trying to convey?

[blueblood]

Would you rather not have that money stay in the family to be spent on things that the other siblings might have to produce instead of that money being gone?

No. That would make the whole family poor.

Let me put it in an other different way: when parents play favorites, the family falls apart.

However, I doubt this analogy will make any difference in your understanding. I suggest taking a high-school economics course.

Some people have it in there head that it is best to "buy local" to insure our "money stays in Canada" but that is the height of absurdity. My sister does woodworking for a hobby. Should I get her to make my bookshelves?

It takes her a year to complete one shelf and she butchers half of the planks of wood she touches.

By the way, I can only afford cheap wafer-board prices and my sister only knows how to use hard-woods.

The things we trade are generally what other countries don't have such as oil and metals.

None of that matters.

Can anybody understand what MarGrace is trying to convey?

Spending the money outside the family and not getting any back makes the family poor. How is it playing favorites when the siblings are going to end up getting their money back?

You are also assuming that all stuff made locally is inefficient, that is absurd and you know it. I'd like to see any farmer overseas attempt to match me and my neighbours for efficiency and quality in grain and canola production.

Some people also have it in their head that since they are the consumer they are entitled to rock bottom prices for whatever they want. You want something you don't have, you pay for it, bottom line.

Link

The mexicans in the article did things your way, and look at them now, a country with a broken ag economy and poorer people for it, all because they didn't want to buy locally, now the only people benefitting are american corn producers. Had supply management been in place this would not have happened. The mexican corn producers would be benefitting, the consumers would not be gouged by high priced (due to lack of competition) imports that they could have made themselves. Your idea of economics is similar to feudalism. With supply management there is a maximum and a minimum which one produces.

[Charles Anthony]

It is not necessary to repeat the entire post.

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Spending the money outside the family and not getting any back makes the family poor. How is it playing favorites when the siblings are going to end up getting their money back?

They are not going to get their money back.

You are also assuming that all stuff made locally is inefficient, that is absurd and you know it. I'd like to see any farmer overseas attempt to match me and my neighbours for efficiency and quality in grain and canola production.

You are probably right with respect to overseas farmers but whether they are efficient or not is irrelevent.

The issue is price. Efficiency is irrelevent. We do not need to know any technical aspects of how the imports were derived with respect to efficiency.

Some people also have it in their head that since they are the consumer they are entitled to rock bottom prices for whatever they want.

That is correct. The consumer is entitled to rock bottom prices if an import is cheaper.

Supply management = suppliers ripping off consumers

It would be more efficient to put the suppliers on welfare and let consumers save money with cheaper imports.

[blueblood]

Spending the money outside the family and not getting any back makes the family poor. How is it playing favorites when the siblings are going to end up getting their money back?

They are not going to get their money back.

What do farmers bury their money in a hole? No they spend it on things they need themselves (which the other siblings provide) The siblings do get their money back. This is like with the residential school survivors getting their massive cheques, I was annoyed at first then I thought to myself where do they spend a lot of their money, the good old gov't controlled liquor store.

Supply management = suppliers ripping off consumers

It would be more efficient to put the suppliers on welfare and let consumers save money with cheaper imports.

that's business and how it works. Why should I as a supplier flood the market and drive down the cost of my produce and suffer because of it? OPEC is doing this, they feel oil prices are too low and are turning off the spigot. It would be more efficient to help out the suppliers who will directly help out our economy, provide jobs.

I'm surprised you haven't commented on what happened in Mexico concerning corn which this is all about. That is what happens when the "free market" happens when the players aren't on the same footing. Supply management would have helped out there, and it would have been in fact the farmers complaining about not getting a high enough price in that situation. You open it up to milk, the lack of competition will drive up prices similar to that concerning Mexican corn. I'm sorry my country comes first. I wish I had supply management for my crops, I wouldn't mind seeing Iran coughing up more money for my wheat.

[Charles Anthony]

What do farmers bury their money in a hole? No they spend it on things they need themselves (which the other siblings provide) The siblings do get their money back. This is like with the residential school survivors getting their massive cheques, I was annoyed at first then I thought to myself where do they spend a lot of their money, the good old gov't controlled liquor store.

With that logic, we should encourage our farmers to start growing money on trees.

Supply management = suppliers ripping off consumers

It would be more efficient to put the suppliers on welfare and let consumers save money with cheaper imports.

that's business and how it works.

With that selfish attitude, do not expect the consumers to enjoy playing in your political games.

Farmers form a tiny fraction of the overall population.

Why should I as a supplier flood the market and drive down the cost of my produce and suffer because of it?

You can form any cartel you want.

However, once you use the strong arm of the law (paid by everybody's taxes) to enforce it, you are a thug.

I'm surprised you haven't commented on what happened in Mexico concerning corn which this is all about.

It does not prove your point. I will quote from your article:

Mr Calderon vowed to clamp down on price speculators, hold down the price of some corn flour sold by the government and scour the planet for cheaper grain to import.

"I don't care if they have to bring it from thousands of kilometres, what matters is that this is not an argument to raise prices," he said.

TimesOnline

Clearly, there is not a free market in Mexico. It looks exactly like the opposite. The government has its hands in the business and poor people are going hungry. Shame on the supply management advocates!

Do not blame free markets for what is happening in Mexico.

[blueblood]

With that logic, we should encourage our farmers to start growing money on trees.

Well if you look at it that way, then in reality that's what farming is.

With that selfish attitude, do not expect the consumers to enjoy playing in your political games.

Farmers form a tiny fraction of the overall population.

Selfish attitude? Every business person in Canada has an attitude like that. We want to make money, what do you have against that? I seriously think that you have it in your head that when a farmer gets paid he buries his money in the ground. Paying other countries for stuff we can make ourselves is like burying money in the ground. Canada and the US are in trade deficits because of attitudes like yours. I don't care if the consumer enjoys playing games as I sure don't like playing hes. A selfish attitude is wanting something for nothing at the expense of other people, you would rather see us starve than pay for our product. This tiny fraction of the population pays a lot of taxes, probably a lot more than you. By your logic we might as well not pay taxes if we're so insignificant, the sales tax on a new combine is probably worth more than your income taxes. As long as we pay taxes we get a say in what's going on. What makes you entitled to cheap food?

However, once you use the strong arm of the law (paid by everybody's taxes) to enforce it, you are a thug.

I'd be no less of a thug than the rest of the industries that use the governments help to get the price they want, what's good for them is good for me

Clearly, there is not a free market in Mexico. It looks exactly like the opposite. The government has its hands in the business and poor people are going hungry. Shame on the supply management advocates!

Do not blame free markets for what is happening in Mexico.

What???

Mexico lifted price controls on tortillas in the 1990s, and is now unable to directly fix the cost of the foodstuff.

I think that's a free market. The government had to put its hands in the business because poor people are going hungry. Supply management would have prevented that due to producers being forced to meet quotas, which increases the supply and keeps prices reasonable in this case. what happens in mexico is what happens in the free market without competition. This proves my point. Importing stuff we can make for ourselves is completely ridiculous.

[Charles Anthony]

Importing stuff we can make for ourselves is completely ridiculous.

Not if the imports are cheaper.

[blueblood]

Importing stuff we can make for ourselves is completely ridiculous.

Not if the imports are cheaper.

not if it results us getting into a trade deficit, and not if the imports eliminate local competition which results in inflated prices.

[Charles Anthony]

Trade deficits are a fake problem.

Local competition is a bogus excuse. I am going to use one of Aug1991's classic analogies to illustrate:

If we could produce lightbulbs ourselves, YOU would say that importing cheap light from the Sun and the Moon is completely ridiculous.

[blueblood]

Trade deficits are a fake problem.

Local competition is a bogus excuse. I am going to use one of Aug1991's classic analogies.

If we could produce lightbulbs ourselves, YOU would say that importing cheap light from the Sun and the Moon is completely ridiculous.

I don't see how they are a fake problem, care to elaborate on that plz?

That's a good point, but look at it this way, if we're already getting cheap light from the sun and the moon, why would we need to bring in lightbulbs in the first place, mind you with the previous point we are assuming the sun and the moon provide light all the time. That is one way of looking at it, the sun and the moon could in essence be local producers and the lightbulbs are the imports.

Also if we're assuming its not light all the time as in reality. We have both lightbulbs and the Sun/Moon. What your saying is we don't need to be paying for lightbulbs, we have the Sun and the Moon for cheap, more efficient way of making light, so the lightbulbs go out of business. We are also assuming in this scenario someone is controlling the moon as its cheap light and not free light, he could be thinking "i'm the only one doing this, I think I want a little more money, i don't have to compete, and if they want light they'll pay". what about when it's night time during the part of the lunar cycle when the moon isn't visible, or when a person is indoors. By paying the local lightbulbs a steady price, we are ensured a constant supply of light.

Also, what can we export to the sun and the moon in exchange, money? According to this analogy, the money goes to the sun and the moon and we don't see it again. The analogy was cheap, not free. If the money goes to the lightbulb makers, they will spend it on things they need locally. If we could in the scenario cut off the sun, because they won't take anything from us that we can get money for, it would be in our best interest to do so as we can supply ourselves with adequate light and keep money circulating through the economy not sending it to the sun.

If you were saying that if both lightbulbs and sunlight/moonlight in this scenario were free I'd agree with you.

[Charles Anthony]

Trade deficits are a fake problem.

I don't see how they are a fake problem, care to elaborate on that plz?

No. I do not care to elaborate because it does not exist.

YOU brought it up, therefore, YOU should explain how a trade deficit is a problem.

Citing "Trade Deficits" as a problem sounds great for winning votes from people who know nothing about trade. It is the same as Dr. Seuss saying "Krade Lefficits" are a problem. All of the people who know ZERO about trade economics will say "Rah! Rah! Rah!" and agree.

If the money goes to the lightbulb makers, they will spend it on things they need locally. If we could in the scenario cut off the sun, because they won't take anything from us that we can get money for, it would be in our best interest to do so as we can supply ourselves with adequate light and keep money circulating through the economy not sending it to the sun.

I give up. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.

[blueblood]

Trade deficits are a fake problem.

I don't see how they are a fake problem, care to elaborate on that plz?

No. I do not care to elaborate because it does not exist.

YOU brought it up, therefore, YOU should explain how a trade deficit is a problem.

Citing "Trade Deficits" as a problem sounds great for winning votes from people who know nothing about trade. It is the same as Dr. Seuss saying "Krade Lefficits" are a problem. All of the people who know ZERO about trade economics will say "Rah! Rah! Rah!" and agree.

If the money goes to the lightbulb makers, they will spend it on things they need locally. If we could in the scenario cut off the sun, because they won't take anything from us that we can get money for, it would be in our best interest to do so as we can supply ourselves with adequate light and keep money circulating through the economy not sending it to the sun.

I give up. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.

I am not getting into a debate about trade deficits, I'll agree with the side that says it's bad due to the fact that I personally don't like being in debt and I like seeing my coffers full in order to purchase things and not having to borrow all the time. I'd say look at the U.S. trade deficit with Canada concerning oil and i'm seeing how rich alberta is, that's my only point on it.

[Renegade]

I am not getting into a debate about trade deficits, I'll agree with the side that says it's bad due to the fact that I personally don't like being in debt and I like seeing my coffers full in order to purchase things and not having to borrow all the time. I'd say look at the U.S. trade deficit with Canada concerning oil and i'm seeing how rich alberta is, that's my only point on it.

blueblood, you seem to point to "trade deficits" as a problem which will arise if we don't restrict foreign reports, but you don't have any support from economists in that area.

most economists do not believe that trade deficits are inherently good or bad, but must be judged based on the circumstances in which they arose.

link

IOW, a prolonged trade deficit is a symptom of a problem rather than a problem itself.

[August1991]

I am not getting into a debate about trade deficits, I'll agree with the side that says it's bad due to the fact that I personally don't like being in debt and I like seeing my coffers full in order to purchase things and not having to borrow all the time. I'd say look at the U.S. trade deficit with Canada concerning oil and i'm seeing how rich alberta is, that's my only point on it.

That makes you a mercantilist or an adept of economic theory circa 1750. I suggest you read this newfangled guy named Adam Smith. He argues that mercantilism is wrong.

[blueblood]

I suggest you read this newfangled guy named Adam Smith. He argues that mercantilism is wrong.

I would like to thank you for pointing that out for me and wiki was an interesting albeit wordy read. I personally would rather have mercantilism than feudalism. Keynes also makes some valid points as well that I agree with. Wiki says that thing about England and Portugal trading. I believe that in an ideal world that would work out if they were both on even ground. You must remember that traders aren't the people with the most integrity, (as is China with being able to produce cheap goods at the expense of it's workers being poor) With a reasonable amount of intervention the economy can prosper. With these two lines of thought you would get a bell curve of sorts and the right mix will get the peak. Which has always been my line of thinking. Much the same with left/right politics of Canada.

This appears to be one of those chicken/egg type arguments that can go on and on and on.