217 replies to this topic

[Bob]

Anyone else find it rich how advocates for the preservation of the archaic CWB invoke "farmer's rights", while the CWB expressly tramples of the rights of farmers to do with their private property (what they manufacture) as they so wish? I keep seeing this invocation of sixty-some-percent of Canadian farmers being in support or preservation of the CWB, but it wouldn't matter if it was 99.9% - it doesn't give anyone the right to control the manner in which a person or business sells their product(s). Moreover, if the CWB is as universally beneficial to Canadian farmers (and the broader Canadian public) as the socialists from the LPC and NDP claim is the case, then why do farmers need to be coerced through government regulations to join the CWB? In a free market environment, farmers would voluntarily join such a fantastic organization. The hypocrisy and absurdity from the Canadian left continues.

Of course, nobody examines any of the broader economic implications of such a government-preserved monopoly. We can get into that later.

[lukin]

Anyone else find it rich how advocates for the preservation of the archaic CWB invoke "farmer's rights", while the CWB expressly tramples of the rights of farmers to do with their private property (what they manufacture) as they so wish? I keep seeing this invocation of sixty-some-percent of Canadian farmers being in support or preservation of the CWB, but it wouldn't matter if it was 99.9% - it doesn't give anyone the right to control the manner in which a person or business sells their product(s). Moreover, if the CWB is as universally beneficial to Canadian farmers (and the broader Canadian public) as the socialists from the LPC and NDP claim is the case, then why do farmers need to be coerced through government regulations to join the CWB? In a free market environment, farmers would voluntarily join such a fantastic organization. The hypocrisy and absurdity from the Canadian left continues.

Of course, nobody examines any of the broader economic implications of such a government-preserved monopoly. We can get into that later.

The CWB is an undemocratic socialist relic. How does it exemplify democracy when farmers can't market their own wheat and barley? If the CWB is so great, then it will survive with competition. I know many farmers who are pro-CWB and many who are anti-CWB. The ones who don't like it have no choice. That is not democracy. The Conservatives are doing the right thing.

[GostHacked]

From what I understand this can help the farmers call the shots on their products. They can negotiate when and how much they sell the stuff for. The CWB is no longer needed, maybe never really needed in the first place.

[Smallc]

I see no reason why the CWB should continue.

[wyly]

I see no reason why the CWB should continue.

there are lots of potential problems with losing the CWB, smaller farmers could get squeezed out(higher unemployment), more corporate farms, higher food prices...once it's gone there will be no bringing it back and we'll have to deal the consequences good or BAD...I not aware of any studies that have looked into the long term effects of this proposal...the system works as it is most farmers want to keep it, do you break something up that works?..

[Smallc]

do you break something up that works?..

I don't know, why don't you go back to the Canadian Monarchy thread and tell me? I've heard various opinions s to whether it (the Wheat Board) works, or whether it's appropriate in this global world, where Canadian farmers are competing with others around the world. More direct access to market may be a good thing.

[wyly]

I don't know, why don't you go back to the Canadian Monarchy thread and tell me? I've heard various opinions s to whether it (the Wheat Board) works, or whether it's appropriate in this global world, where Canadian farmers are competing with others around the world. More direct access to market may be a good thing.

the monarchy serves no useful purpose other than sucking money from the public and most canadians would want to get rid of it...the CWB does serve a purpose it works and most farmers want to it to stay as is...if farmers are allowed to opt out I can't say that would be wrong but then canadians should be allowed to opt out of the whole royalty crapola...only monarchist taxes pay for state visits and non monarchists can opt out of recognizing the monarchy as canadian and have an elected head of state, works for me

Edited by wyly, 19 October 2011 - 01:52 PM.

[Bob]

Posters like wyly regularly demonstrate that the level of education provided to average Canadians regarding basic economics is lacking.

Let's go through his list of "potential problems" point by point, shall we?

With respect to "smaller farmers being squeezed out" as a consequence of the abolition of the CWB, it's quite simple: if you can't compete, get out of the industry. As has already been said, if the CWB is as universally beneficial as its proponents claim it to be, farmers will voluntarily such an organization outside of the coercion of the government, which is what's happening now with "grain police" enforcing the CWB. Nevermind the fact that the very concept of such a grain cartel is entirely anti-competitive and amounts to government-sanctioned collusion. The losers of course are always the consumers, with the "poor farmers" needing government "protection" and "investment".

Related to your "potential problem" of higher food prices, the CWB's claim to fame is how it proclaims to get the highest possible price for grain it markets. The CWB, proudly, presents itself as a sort of domestic form of OPEC for the grain industry. Granted, Canadian wheat production doesn't compose nearly the same share of global grain production as OPEC member states do as a share of global crude oil production, but they do present themselves as a sort of mini-grain-cartel. What this means is, they essentially inflate prices - meaning we're paying more right now as a consequence of their operations as would otherwise be the case. Ever the dedicated leftist, however, wyly inverts reality on its head. Somehow, in his mind, the abolition of the CWB and the implementation of true free market principles on the domestic grain industry would somehow lead to higher food prices.

As far as "more corporate farms" being a "potential problem" resulting from the abolition of the CWB, do you not realize that virtually all farms are incorporated? I'd be greatly surprised if any serious farms out there operate as sole proprietorships or partnerships. Any farmer with a shred of business sense would incorporate. Of course, this is just the reflexive anti-corporate silliness of the left. If it's corporate, it's somehow inherently evil.

Lastly, as we've seen with Michael Hardner and other leftists, the endless refrain for "studies" to illustrate basic principles of the free market. Remember folks, in the world of the leftists, we need "studies" and "research" composed by likeminded leftist sociologists before formulating or implementing any public policy. Just like we needed "studies" and "research" to demonstrate that drug users have a lower likelihood of dying from an overdose should they overdose at or near an Insite clinic than would otherwise be the case.

Edited by Bob, 19 October 2011 - 12:34 PM.

[guyser]

Posters like wyly regularly demonstrate that the level of education provided to average Canadians regarding basic economics is lacking.

If you say that , then its a compliment.

Let's go through his list of "potential problems" point by point, shall we?

Why, lets use your pathetic display of ignorance instead...

We will start here....

Any farmer with a shred of business sense would incorporate. Of course, this is just the reflexive anti-corporate silliness of the left. If it's corporate, it's somehow inherently evil.

and move on to ...

I'd be greatly surprised if any serious farms out there operate as sole proprietorships or partnerships. Any farmer with a shred of business sense would incorporate.

You hate farmers because they are dumb. Does it matter if they are left or right?

16% of all farms are incorporated.

[Bob]

There is no way that 16% of farms are incorporated. It's probably a lot closer to 99%. But hey, I "hate farmers", right?

EDIT - Predictably, guyser avoids the the thrust of the thread and goes into irrelevant tangents, which doesn't bode any better for him.

Edited by Bob, 19 October 2011 - 12:57 PM.

[Black Dog]

EDIT - Predictably, guyser avoids the the thrust of the thread and goes into irrelevant tangents, which doesn't bode any better for him.

Lastly, as we've seen with Michael Hardner and other leftists, the endless refrain for "studies" to illustrate basic principles of the free market. Remember folks, in the world of the leftists, we need "studies" and "research" composed by likeminded leftist sociologists before formulating or implementing any public policy. Just like we needed "studies" and "research" to demonstrate that drug users have a lower likelihood of dying from an overdose should they overdose at or near an Insite clinic than would otherwise be the case.

Edited by Black Dog, 19 October 2011 - 01:11 PM.

[blueblood]

If you say that , then its a compliment.

Why, lets use your pathetic display of ignorance instead...

We will start here....

and move on to ...


You hate farmers because they are dumb. Does it matter if they are left or right?

16% of all farms are incorporated.

Your pretty much correct. I saw a number that was 21 percent, but that may be SKs numbers. But ill say that's a wash, for simplicity sake we'll go 1 in 5. Lots of guys don't because they don't know about it, don't want tp deal with setting one up, or they still want to be able to write down their losses for income tax purposes. No two outfits are alike and incorporating works for some and not others. Msj can fill in the blanks on the accounting side.

As for the cwb. Their performance is debatable with many studies supporting each sides claims. I am in the camp that thinks it should be voluntary. The simple fact of them kicking and screaming for the DPCs, the 40 tonne minimum amount of grain sold thru the cwb to vote in their elections for starters. The fact that board grains share of the canadian crop is dropping like a rock, the fact that more producers are going to corn, canola, and pulses. The fact that there has been hardly a peep out of australia when their board has went. And the fact that if you read their literature, its their scare tactic tone, if I have to be scared into something to buy into it, somethings up. As for small farmers being run out, that's bs because they are going big into nonboard grains just like everyone else. Then there's the hauling into the usa bit, it will be nice to do so without spending time in the clink and it will force canadian delivery points to up their prices.

As for the cwb not surviving, ask smallc about co-op stores in western canada and how they dominate rural western canada. Then there is the argument about not having assets, well just about every farmer has poured money into on farm storage, the new board can regulate how much grain each farmer sells to maintain its pooling situation.

If you check out producer.com, and read the blogs there is some good balanced literature on the subject.

[guyser]

There is no way that 16% of farms are incorporated. It's probably a lot closer to 99%. But hey, I "hate farmers", right?

EDIT - Predictably, guyser avoids the the thrust of the thread and goes into irrelevant tangents, which doesn't bode any better for him.

The thrust of your post as 4 points to ponder is thus...

2 points were opinions, nothing more nothing less, and full of inanities .

The other two points of your post were, one was trying to be fact based, of which you were so far from correct it is laughable, so laughable it makes your opinion part really suspect (to be nice about it) and the last is a stab at one of the best and respected posters on this board.

Now that you have been pantsed, shown just how idiotic assertions can bite you , you take a different tack and try to obfuscate.


Well done sir! Both ignorant of facts, and opinions without any. Woo hoo!!

[guyser]

Your pretty much correct. I saw a number that was 21 percent, but that may be SKs numbers. But ill say that's a wash, for simplicity sake we'll go 1 in 5. Lots of guys don't because they don't know about it, don't want tp deal with setting one up, or they still want to be able to write down their losses for income tax purposes. No two outfits are alike and incorporating works for some and not others. Msj can fill in the blanks on the accounting side.

Thanks,I had a feeling the number quoted was pulled from someones posterior, seems a common occurrence.

I believe the numberws for SK are as you say.Pretty close anyway.

As for the cwb. Their performance is debatable with many studies supporting each sides claims. I am in the camp that thinks it should be voluntary. The simple fact of them kicking and screaming for the DPCs, the 40 tonne minimum amount of grain sold thru the cwb to vote in their elections for starters. The fact that board grains share of the canadian crop is dropping like a rock, the fact that more producers are going to corn, canola, and pulses. The fact that there has been hardly a peep out of australia when their board has went. And the fact that if you read their literature, its their scare tactic tone, if I have to be scared into something to buy into it, somethings up. As for small farmers being run out, that's bs because they are going big into nonboard grains just like everyone else. Then there's the hauling into the usa bit, it will be nice to do so without spending time in the clink and it will force canadian delivery points to up their prices.

As for the cwb not surviving, ask smallc about co-op stores in western canada and how they dominate rural western canada. Then there is the argument about not having assets, well just about every farmer has poured money into on farm storage, the new board can regulate how much grain each farmer sells to maintain its pooling situation.

If you check out producer.com, and read the blogs there is some good balanced literature on the subject.

I admit my knowlesdge of the CWB is minimal. SO educate me...us?

What does the small producer do with his wheat if a large clout welding entity like the CWB is done away with. Will that farmer have to get on the net (or whatever) and try and negotiate the sale and price of his product?

If so....how can they do that and farm?

Does that not make them at the mercy of any offer they get? Does not the CWB work for most smaller guys in ensuring a sale price at some point in the growing season ?

[wyly]

Posters like wyly regularly demonstrate that the level of education provided to average Canadians regarding basic economics is lacking.

Let's go through his list of "potential problems" point by point, shall we?

With respect to "smaller farmers being squeezed out" as a consequence of the abolition of the CWB, it's quite simple: if you can't compete, get out of the industry. As has already been said, if the CWB is as universally beneficial as its proponents claim it to be, farmers will voluntarily such an organization outside of the coercion of the government, which is what's happening now with "grain police" enforcing the CWB. Nevermind the fact that the very concept of such a grain cartel is entirely anti-competitive and amounts to government-sanctioned collusion. The losers of course are always the consumers, with the "poor farmers" needing government "protection" and "investment".

Related to your "potential problem" of higher food prices, the CWB's claim to fame is how it proclaims to get the highest possible price for grain it markets. The CWB, proudly, presents itself as a sort of domestic form of OPEC for the grain industry. Granted, Canadian wheat production doesn't compose nearly the same share of global grain production as OPEC member states do as a share of global crude oil production, but they do present themselves as a sort of mini-grain-cartel. What this means is, they essentially inflate prices - meaning we're paying more right now as a consequence of their operations as would otherwise be the case. Ever the dedicated leftist, however, wyly inverts reality on its head. Somehow, in his mind, the abolition of the CWB and the implementation of true free market principles on the domestic grain industry would somehow lead to higher food prices.

As far as "more corporate farms" being a "potential problem" resulting from the abolition of the CWB, do you not realize that virtually all farms are incorporated? I'd be greatly surprised if any serious farms out there operate as sole proprietorships or partnerships. Any farmer with a shred of business sense would incorporate. Of course, this is just the reflexive anti-corporate silliness of the left. If it's corporate, it's somehow inherently evil.

Lastly, as we've seen with Michael Hardner and other leftists, the endless refrain for "studies" to illustrate basic principles of the free market. Remember folks, in the world of the leftists, we need "studies" and "research" composed by likeminded leftist sociologists before formulating or implementing any public policy. Just like we needed "studies" and "research" to demonstrate that drug users have a lower likelihood of dying from an overdose should they overdose at or near an Insite clinic than would otherwise be the case.

fascist economics bob? you have no relevancy on any topic...that you disagree with me verifies I must be right...