makin' it work

[chaffmeister]

Tower:

I believe that the harshest thing I have directed to you is that you don't know what you're talking about and that you haven't been paying attention. If you believe that this constitutes an "attack" on yourself, that is unfortunate.

I'll put it it gentler terms. I believe you are mis- or under-informed about issues you address here on Agriville. And since you are asking questions that have been answered, you seem to have missed the answers.

You are right - I do have some beliefs. But you say that as if there's something wrong with that. It appears that the difference between us is that I provide actual real information that supports everything I put forward while you have yet to provide the basis of your belief - that the CWB actually provides value.

So 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?

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

[tower]

chaffmeister, sacred? about the wheat board? that is only posturing, unless you haven't taken the time to read my posts.

I have looked at the quoeum reports for anything that says what you say about the relative incomes of the multinationals. please provide a fuller address or let me know how to access it.,

[tower]

fransisco, I've seen some pretty good social activists and protesters go to jail for reasons that I though were a lot better than trying to make an end run around the wheat board.

I have no sympathy there.

You have the option of trying to get elected in a relatively small election process and trying to change things from within.

[tower]

kamichel, I don't think we can count on the many markets for many sellers idea given the continuing amalgamation of agribusiness. However there is still a possibility that your options approach might help.

I'd like to hear a wheat board response to this one.

[chaffmeister]

Sacred - as in revered, valued, honoured, venerated.

Please don't take this the wrong way but your posts clearly demonstrate a high regard for the institution (such as "we're a lot better off with the CWB...") So the use of the word "sacred" refers to the unwavering devotion to the CWB demonstrated by some - even when faced with facts that clearly demonstrate some of its weaknesses. It is not "posturing".

So my question can be rephrased: "Why? Why do you support the CWB and seem to turn a blind eye to the facts?"

Concerning grain company revenues from handling grain:

Go to:

http://www.quorumcorp.net/Downloads/AnnualReports/AnnualReport200506DataTablesEnglish.pdf

Look at page 184 re wheat:

total average export "basis" in 05/06 was $61.81 per tonne

Average primary elevation was $11.76
Cleaning was $4.43
Average trucking premiums paid out was $4.56
Average CWB cost savings through tendering and terminal agreements was $1.32
All these items are to the account of the grain handlers - the first two are revenues, the second two are reductions to revenue. So on CWB business they averaged $10.31 per tonne revenue.

Add to that the export terminal elevations of about $10.

Those that don't have a terminal still get a "diversion fee" from the terminals that handle their grain - negotiated privately in the area of about $2.00 to $5.00 per tonne handled.

So you could say that the fully integrated firms make about $20 per tonne before blending gains; non-integrated firms make about $15 per tonne before blending gains.

Now go to page 186 for canola.

The total export "basis" is $41.51 per tonne.

The net difference between the street price (farm price) and the export price in Vancouver is reported to be an average of about $34.20. Considering the average freight rate is about $37 (look at the wheat page P.184), grain companies are showing a loss of $2.80 per tonne before blending and terminal elevations. I don't think I need to do the rest of the math to show that it's much more lucrative to handle CWB grains.

Believe it. Or not.

[silverback]

Sorry Tower, I am pretty sure that there will never be more farmers out here than there are now. It has been happening this way for a hundred years and it is not going to stop just to satisfy your dream.

If you can also show us where exactly the large grain companies really want to be the primary producers, then I will start being as fearful as you about their future goals.

You also seem to fit in a lot of comments about climate change and the breakdown of our environment. I don't know where you claim to farm, but we could sure use some global warming caused by my combine right about now. If you want to talk pollution - great, but increasing temps might help a lot of areas of the northern prairies.

The cwb is a forced collective as you should know by now. What part of freedom of choice do you not like? If you like it so much you keep it and make it stronger, just please explain how it is ok to force the rest of us to belong to your club.

[tower]

chaffmeister, show me an institution, private or public that does not have weaknesses. I've gone to the quorum site four times four different ways and still haven't found the information you say is relevant.

[tower]

silverback, If the loss of a cwb choice resulted from the attempts by some to break the cwb, we would end up with an enforced uncollective. the question is then who is being more short-sighted.

Since the multinational agribusiness corps are into every other level of food production, processing, handling, secondary industry, and inputs to farming, one can only assume the reason they haven't gotten nto primary production yet is that there hasn't been enough cash in it for them. It's easier to extract the primary production cash flow out with control over other facets.

Where peak oil, water shortages, and global warming enter into the equation is that it could mean that the person onsite at the farm will be the one able to capitalize on grain shortages resultant. Rather than lose the kind of control the multinationals have at this point I can see them trying hard to figure a way that would allow them to grab the primary share as well.

[Fransisco]

An "enforced uncollective"? What kind of intellectual gobbledygook is that?

No one has ever suggested putting tower and his friends in jail if they want to get together and market their grain.

Allowing myself and others to market their own grain in no way what-so-ever disallows you from acting cooperatively with your neighbors and fellow farmers.

We are not talking about opposite sides of the same coin here. Stop pretending that we are.

[AdamSmith]

tower, you asked

"I'm curious about how the elections could be run without such a twisted system."

I think the whole idea of farmer directors to the current monopoly cwb is naive and foolhardy.

Giving my neighbor the power to lord over me without my consent is immoral.
As I have no other alternative other than to accept the prices, policies and direction this group chooses for me.

Elected farmer directors of a VOLUNTARY organization is proper and reasonable. I will participate if I see it as in my best interest or I can opt out, no hard feelings, no lawsuits, just an amicable parting of ways.

But with cwb elections and from a business perspective, the rules are absurd and are an insult to farmers.

The district boundaries were deliberately structured to favor the cwb single desk supporters. I farm in SW MB, the day to day farming issues I face are very similar to those in S Central MB and the Red River Valley. Yet I'm grouped in with farmers from the Swan River Valley who's way of farming and the issues that matter most to them, are many times at odds with those of a farmer from the SW.

A logical drawing of districts would have been two MB districts, one north and one south. Yet for reasons of pure political advantage the districts were drawn in order to have the northern friends of the cwb offset the southern supporters of a choice system in both districts.

Also they are a one permit book - one vote election. We all know that many non farmers vote under this system and that too in my opinion was deliberate in order to give the single deskers advantage.

The cwb on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, claim to be no different than the Multis, they are merely a corporate entity competing in the global marketplace. Strictly business. So shouldn't the voting for director be done with corporate rules as well?
Based on Shares or in this case bushels? So when old Mr. quit farming in 1987 and 300 of his fellow residence of the old folks home get their ballots, their vote won't really control the balance of the election like it can today.

And how many times at your all candidates meetings you've attended has personal experience and qualification and knowledge of the grain business been discussed?

In every election the main, if not the only issue has been the monopoly and in my opinion the guys who are there are nothing more than third rate politicians, some of them even speak just like you, about the threat of multi-national control of everything farming.

So I believe decisions are being made or being approved of based on conspiracy theories instead of sound judgment that comes from years of experience in the grain business.

And this has all come about because of Ralph Goodale's shortsighted blind faith in the cwb and his refusal to acknowledge it's shortcomings.