Why are the Conservatives Killing the Wheat Board?

[Renegade]

There we have it folks... he is advocating screwing over canadian farmers to the benifit of our southern neighbours.

I fail to see how providing subsidized food for canadian consumers is a benefit for our southern neighbours.

If I told you that the Canadian Government should subsidize the price of groceries for US consumers, would you see that as a benefit for Canada?

They subsidize, we roll over & go bankrupt... wow what a way to run a country

If you can't produce something without a subsidy, then yes, go bankrupt. Better for everybody.

[Technocrat]

I read your commodity hedging page. The CWB still makes a hell of alot more sense then relying on commodity hedging.

I see one benificiary from this whole scheme, the financial sector. As each time a transaction goes through the financial sector get to keep their little sliver of pie. I think the banks and traders have found a new potential market to make profits in.

It may seem very tin hat... but hey someone has to be pushing this. I doubt a small minority of farmers really hold this much sway with the PM. Always look for who stants to really gain.

[jdobbin]

You are sidetracking the discussion. I didn't dispute that farmers elsewhere are given subsidies. The wheat board is not a subsidy. Farmers keeps saying that over and over. I understand that. So let's not sidetrack the discussion unless your position is that subsidies to Canadian farmers are necessary. Is that your position?

If you want to debate the CPP, I'm happy to do so; start another thread. It woudl get too confusing to do so in this thread.

Again, why? There are a lot of other commodities who also incur price risk. There already risk reduction mechanisms available to commodity producers. Why can't those be used.

Are you saying the CWB is a subsidy? As I understand it the CWB's purpose is price stablization, not subsidy.

I would not consider an industry "successful" if it depends upon subsidies to survive. There probably isn't a grain industry elsewhere which is not heavily subsidized. It only takes one government to subsidize its farmers in order to give them a competitive advantage or the others have to follow suit. But it is madness to subsidize a money losing proposition. If the US subsidizes its grain and as a result Canadian farmers can't compete, fine. Let the Canadian farmers go out of business and we'll buy subsidized US grain at below cost prices courtesy of the US government.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not a subsidy. The WTO and NAFTA nor U.S. trade organizations have been able to claim that the Wheat Board is a subsidy. It is the Americans and Europeans that subsidize wheat.

As far as the CPP goes, it show the heart of the Tory argument of privatizing things for the sake of privatizing. It doesn't necessarily help anyone.

Your policy of dismantling the Wheat Board and letting farmers go bankrupt so we can buy U.S. wheat is heartwarming. Please tell the Tories to run on that platform next election. After that, tell them their pensions are next.

[jdobbin]

Its called forward contracts and commodity hedging. Go read up. Here's a link to get you started: Commodity Hedging - Hedging Risk with a Commodity Futures Hedging Strategy

The ones that get hammered are the ones that don't mitigate risk. Just as the small business owner who doesn't buy fire insurance gets hammered when his place burns down.

What are you implying? That "farming types" don't have the ability to understand and manage risk?

It was commodities futures trading in Canada and the U.S. that necessitated co-ops and the Wheat Board in the first place.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals...111.2/levy.html

You're making the argument for the Wheat Board. In the States, the proof is that grain farmers can't operate without a subsidy. Meanwhile, Cargill is richest private enterprise in the U.S.

[jdobbin]

I fail to see how providing subsidized food for canadian consumers is a benefit for our southern neighbours.

If I told you that the Canadian Government should subsidize the price of groceries for US consumers, would you see that as a benefit for Canada?

If you can't produce something without a subsidy, then yes, go bankrupt. Better for everybody.

The Wheat Board doesn't subsidize groceries for U.S. consumers.

I hope that the Conservatives are plain in what they think the future of farming should be in Canada.

[Renegade]

I read your commodity hedging page. The CWB still makes a hell of alot more sense then relying on commodity hedging.

So go ahead and give it a shot and explain why.

[Renegade]

Your policy of dismantling the Wheat Board and letting farmers go bankrupt so we can buy U.S. wheat is heartwarming.

Ah, I didn't realize that what you wanted was a heartwarming reason to prop up otherwise unsuccessful farmers.

Please tell the Tories to run on that platform next election. After that, tell them their pensions are next.

You'd have to do that yourself at the ballot box. I somehow suspect they aren't going to lose your vote as they never had it to begin with. I'm not the messenger boy for the Tories. I agree with some things they do, I disagree with others.

[gerryhatrick]

If it's in the farmers best interest, they'd organize one themselves in the absence of the CWB.

The CWB is a farmers organization.

[jdobbin]

Ah, I didn't realize that what you wanted was a heartwarming reason to prop up otherwise unsuccessful farmers.

You'd have to do that yourself at the ballot box. I somehow suspect they aren't going to lose your vote as they never had it to begin with. I'm not the messenger boy for the Tories. I agree with some things they do, I disagree with others.

I'd like the farmers to be able to retain the type of Board they want. You've said you want to change it no matter what they want.

[Renegade]

It was commodities futures trading in Canada and the U.S. that necessitated co-ops and the Wheat Board in the first place.

No, the issue was that farmers didn't participate in commodities futures trading, and thus were at the mercy of those who did, such as speculators and storage companies. If the farmers have the ability to mitigate risk on their own, there is no need for the CWB.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals...111.2/levy.html

An interesting read, but pretty much relates to the 1800s. I can see an argument that in the 1800s a farmer didn't have the technology or have access to commodity markets and so a board to pool risk and reward was necessary. That is hardly true today.

You're making the argument for the Wheat Board. In the States, the proof is that grain farmers can't operate without a subsidy. Meanwhile, Cargill is richest private enterprise in the U.S.

No, I'm agreeing that farmers as commodity producers need a way to mitigate the risk of commodity prices. I don't agree that the only solution is a WB. There are market solutions available which peform the same role without the restrictions on freedom the WB depends upon.

[Renegade]

I'd like the farmers to be able to retain the type of Board they want. You've said you want to change it no matter what they want.

I'd like the farmers to be able to retain the type of Board they want too. Just so long as the don't impose that preference on other farmers who don't agree. Your asking for the right of a majority to bully a minority. I can't agree with that.

BTW, I understand the Ontario Wheat Board, does NOT force farmers to sell to it exclusively, unlike the CWB, yet it seems to operate successfully. Why is that?

[Renegade]

*duplicate post

[Renegade]

The Canadian Wheat Board is not a subsidy.

I agree that it is **mostly** not a subsidy. There are elemetns of it which are a subsidy however. There is a government guarantee against losses. When the government takes on risk on behalf of the board without being paid accordingly, it is indeed subsidizing the Board.

[jdobbin]

I agree that it is **mostly** not a subsidy. There are elemetns of it which are a subsidy however. There is a government guarantee against losses. When the government takes on risk on behalf of the board without being paid accordingly, it is indeed subsidizing the Board.

This is the American argument and in 2003, the WTO agreed it wasn't a subsidy.

[Renegade]

I agree that it is **mostly** not a subsidy. There are elemetns of it which are a subsidy however. There is a government guarantee against losses. When the government takes on risk on behalf of the board without being paid accordingly, it is indeed subsidizing the Board.

This is the American argument and in 2003, the WTO agreed it wasn't a subsidy.

The Americans accusing the CWB of being a subsidy is the pot calling the kettle black, regardless, it is a judgement call as to what is a subsidy. I understand the favourable WTO ruling, but in my view, when a government provides a group with something of value it is a subsidy. Mind you, despite the "subsidy" provided, I don't believe that it is material to CWB's existance.

[jdobbin]

The Americans accusing the CWB of being a subsidy is the pot calling the kettle black, regardless, it is a judgement call as to what is a subsidy. I understand the favourable WTO ruling, but in my view, when a government provides a group with something of value it is a subsidy. Mind you, despite the "subsidy" provided, I don't believe that it is material to CWB's existance.

I find the problem with conservatives coming up with "ideas" is that often what they think will happen and what will happen are two different things.

For example, conservatives are mad at Bush for somehow screwing up their idea of a war with Iraq and bringing democracy to the region. They don't take into account that their idea itself might have been impractical.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...2/neocons200612

I think the idea of bringing "choice" to farmers sounds good but it is probably not realistic that grain farmers will be able to survive without huge supports without the single desk. Seriously. There were attempts to make it work prior to 1935. None of those attempts worked. And commodity hedging didn't help farmers.

The "are there no workhouses?" Dickens-like attitude of conservatives is not a workable or humane agricultural farm policy. And it seems contradictory when the Tories are protecting Canadian businesses from takeover as they announced this week.

[Renegade]

I think the idea of bringing "choice" to farmers sounds good but it is probably not realistic that grain farmers will be able to survive without huge supports without the single desk. Seriously.

Yes, it is true that some grain farmers will not survive without supports. Those that do will be stronger because of it. That is the nature of adapting to change, and is not confined only to grain farmers.

[Technocrat]

I think the idea of bringing "choice" to farmers sounds good but it is probably not realistic that grain farmers will be able to survive without huge supports without the single desk. Seriously.

Yes, it is true that some grain farmers will not survive without supports. Those that do will be stronger because of it. That is the nature of adapting to change, and is not confined only to grain farmers.

That sure is easy to say when its not your ass on the line isn't it.

[Renegade]

That sure is easy to say when its not your ass on the line isn't it.

No my ass isn't on the line. I have no tangible benefit one way or the other. That allows me to be objective.

Those of you who have a vested stake and who's asses are on the line have self-interest at stake and thus come at it from a position of extreme bias.

[jdobbin]

Yes, it is true that some grain farmers will not survive without supports. Those that do will be stronger because of it. That is the nature of adapting to change, and is not confined only to grain farmers.

Perhaps Chuck Strahl, the logger, will keep that in mind for the forestry industry and stumpage fees. They'll be much stronger with even higher stumpage fees.

[Technocrat]

If you think my ass is on the line with this proposal think again. The ag community that i deal with is in no way shape or form affected by this proposal. My job is safe & sound thank you very much.

[abcon99]

Forcing people to sell to the government monopoly, on penalty of imprisonment is communist and disgusting. I dispute that a majority of farmers don't want choice, but even if that were true, in my mind and in the minds of conservatives, if only one single farmer wants a choice in who he can sell to, then it must be so.

[Technocrat]

Forcing people to sell to the government monopoly, on penalty of imprisonment is communist and disgusting. I dispute that a majority of farmers don't want choice, but even if that were true, in my mind and in the minds of conservatives, if only one single farmer wants a choice in who he can sell to, then it must be so.

so if a single crackdealer wants to sell crack then it must be so?

How about a single speeder?

Single inside trader?

Single marijuana farmer?

Your logic is false... try again.

[Technocrat]

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/news/releases/...rveymay2006.pdf

Posted for the second time in this forum.

My number was off. 76% support the Wheat Board. 74% do not support disbanding it.

Some people should read the thread.

posted again for those who can't bother reading the thread.

Dispute the numbers all you want... in reality... you are wrong.

Have a nice day.

[abcon99]

Without knowing what the poll was, what the questions were in detail, and who was asked, I don't recognize it. And like I said, I don't care anyway. And selling grain is legal, that other stuff is not. Give your head a shake.