CWB's little black book

[mcfarms]

I've sat back and watched this argument on here for what? 10 years, to me to this debate isn't so much value of sales and who creates the value but timing of sales and who makes that timing decision. ( the price is part of the timing) If the board can get a premium for aggregation, quality control and brand recognition they then add value and I'd be prepared to work with them. I think what people are asking for here is to somehow put the ability and responsibilty for timing of sales more into the producers hands. For both wheat and Barley sales.

Am I on the right track?

[liberty]

What astounds me is that despite having been on the board of directors for a number of years, it has taken until now for Vader to ask for the core data and methodology behind the CWB's "black book".

I would have thought this would have been a priority for someone who is truly interested in establishing the truth about the CWB's claims that the single desk captures premiums that a multiple seller/buyer environment can't.

[mcfarms]

Again this whole thread speaks more to timing of sales than value of sales. Can I reach out and get a "premium " at a time when everyone else is not selling becasue they feel the offers are to low?

[parsley]

How soon we get distracted by the likes of Vader.


The debate is, and always has been about farmers being able to sell what they grow, what they own.

Period.

Liken it to being able to sell the land you own.


Or perhaps you approved of the Saskatchewan Land Bank experiment.

I'm sure, in retrospect, the likes of Vader would.

They'll have "seen the light", because Blakney would have shown him the Gov't books in the back room, disguised with a green lightbulb, and all those columns of red figures would seem acceptable because they were not red.


The CWB......there is only one issue.


Prices, timing, province, season, present spouse, or currency....none of them matter unless farmers, themselves, have the right to sell what they own, when they want, to whom they want.

Nothing else matters.

Nothing difficult about it IF farmers can stay focused on the important issue instead of chasing side-issues like timing etc. Good grief.

Parsley

[chaffmeister]

parsley:

If you want to win this political battle, you'll need more than the ideological argument. Those opposed to "choice" simply don't get it and saying "it's my grain, it's my right" over and over isn't going to sway them.

The fiscal, financial, economic or performance argument is where the CWB argument will be seriously "injured".

If anything, Evader and the CWB have been distracted. They are now engaged in an argument that they can only win if we get complacent and let up. Trust me.

[parsley]

Yes, some will argue that proving to a person or a group that a specific system will get them more money is inspiring enough to ccurr change.

Those same folks will email the citizens of Cuba, a list of comparative world yearly incomes, to inspire them.

The problem is most Cuban farmers don't have computers, and can't read English/Bureaucratic lingo, and are told the information is a lie/propoganda, not unlike any farmers grouped in regions.


Many who enlisted in WWII fought for an ideal. They were idealogues. As am I. They actually wanted a free country. They wanted to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES, and not have the state make it for them.

Such an old fashioned idea.

But a critical one.


The CWB puts forward the position they will get more money for farmers, no matter who's pooling account they rob,what farmers they financially protect ahead of others, what company they doublecross, what ship they leave waiting, in other words, their basic principle is a quest for cash for itself, for the Board as a government entitiy, but not necessarity for farmers.


Wouldn't it be better if the choice side is be based upon the principle of freedom of choice....not just chasing Farmer Joe's cash, or some other poor bastard's cash, but the ideology of freedom of choice?

Because in the final analysis, extra cash is tempting, for a few, but choice, for free people, for slaves, for well looked after 1929 women, is the inevitable choice.


One that is neve, ever second-guessed.

Parsley

[cropduster]

I like your simplistic arguement the best Parsnip!! Way back(3days on this thread)Wilagro admitted he/she asserted her/his rights to `the` boss and achieved freedom,at least within the job description.Funny,haven`t seen or heard of him/her since he/she came `out of the closet` on marketing choice!Freedom in that case only worked for 10 or 12 years tho`!Poor socialist can`t deal with oneself after the assertion??? Ooohhh,forgot again,grain marketing here in western Canada is `different`!!Seems even Vader and Aggie are still afraid to let the `big bad marketplace` prove their TRUE performance!!!!

[wilagro]

cropduster: May I suggest a good dose of castor oil is sometimes good medicine for problems like yours.

Now that is polite.

[Fransisco]

Did some digging today into these USDA average weighted prices. This is what I found out.

They use a different crop year, starting July 1.

For '07, it's a moving target at this point, just like the PRO, we won't know the final number for a few month's.

The USDA data covers all premiums discounts and contracts across all quality levels, as I suspected.

Sooo...first off you would have to get the crop years to line up. Which is the least of the problems.

How anyone would be able to do a proper dollar adjustment on this mess is beyond me.

And you would have to use all of the boards sales on all grade's of hard red spring and throw in the sale of all non-board wheat as well to get close to a proper comparison. Just taking the Vancouver price for number 1 14.5 HRSW as it appears Rod did doesn't come anywhere close to be realistic.

And at the end of all this you would still be talking about an average, a mathematical construct that isn't real. There is no such thing as an average farmer in the US you can point to who would fit that description. Some would be better some would be worse, the main point being that they would all be different and because of this make different choices throughout the year for different reasons none of which can be considered wrong for that individual farmer.

The board keeps trying to shoehorn us all into the exact same box that doesn't fit anyone perfectly. Which is why at the end of the day it costs us all money. For some the right thing to do might have been sell the whole crop at harvest. For others it would have been to sell incrementally throughout the year. Others might try to pick off two or three highs. And there are many, many other scenarios all of which are valid.

The only one that isn't is the monopoly CWB one because it takes that choice away from the person it matters most. The farmer.

[cropduster]

You`re dating yourself there Willie............isn`t the newer technology "prune juice"?????Just what I expected for a factual rebuttal !!