[BartSimpson]

raydan raydan:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But I object to anyone being forced into anything. That's where you lose me.

If you want to drive, you are forced to get a license.
If you want to travel outside the USA, you have to get a passport.

Paying taxes, following the laws of the land, marriage license, hunting license...

Need I continue? There are a lot of things you are forced to do.

So why not force people to do all sorts of other stuff is what you're saying?

[Robair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

But I object to anyone being forced into anything. That's where you lose me.

Who was being forced into something???

Wheat board was in place long before current farmers decided to start farming.

Don't want to sell through the board? Grow lentils. Grow canola. Grow chickpeas. Grow flax. Grow mustard. Grow rye.

The farmers weren't pushing for the end of the board. Quite the opposite.

[BartSimpson]

Look, if it's such a great idea then why the need to force anyone to participate?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Look, if it's such a great idea then why the need to force anyone to participate?

It was started during WWII to ensure food security during rationing.

It evolved into something else, but the laws were never changed requiring western wheat and barley farmers to participate.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So why not force people to do all sorts of other stuff is what you're saying?

Nope, what I'm saying is that...

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

[Robair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Look, if it's such a great idea then why the need to force anyone to participate?

See, this is why when you say "I'm informed enough" you are dead wrong.

You have no idea, obviously.

The board set a minimum guaranteed price. They would aim low. Farmers would get this guaranteed price all year long as they deliver grain. Then as the board gets better deals on transportation, better prices are negotiated, all that extra cash minus operating costs was returned to the farmers in year end equalization payments.

In the very early years, the board was optional. They set the minimum price, and many farmers would sell elsewhere because the price across town was higher at that moment. Wheat board losses all it bargaining clout with transport companies and marketing clout with decreased quality etc.

Optional, or elimination of single desk is working out just the way farmers knew it would.

[BartSimpson]

Robair Robair:

See, this is why when you say "I'm informed enough" you are dead wrong.

You have no idea, obviously.

The board set a minimum guaranteed price. They would aim low. Farmers would get this guaranteed price all year long as they deliver grain. Then as the board gets better deals on transportation, better prices are negotiated, all that extra cash minus operating costs was returned to the farmers in year end equalization payments.

In the very early years, the board was optional. They set the minimum price, and many farmers would sell elsewhere because the price across town was higher at that moment. Wheat board losses all it bargaining clout with transport companies and marketing clout with decreased quality etc.

Optional, or elimination of single desk is working out just the way farmers knew it would.

A cooperative can do the same things. No need to force anyone to participate in a decent cooperative.

Here's one that works just fine without forcing anyone to participate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Diamond_Growers

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A cooperative can do the same things. No need to force anyone to participate in a decent cooperative.

It can't though. One thing the Wheat Board had, was guaranteed access to rail cars and ports (like Churchill). Without the legislation to force the Agribusiness that owns the ports to comply, they could just let the grain sit in regional silos until it's worthless, eliminating the competition and further driving small farmers out of business.

[Robair]

Yep.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Look, if it's such a great idea then why the need to force anyone to participate?

It was started during WWII to ensure food security during rationing.

It evolved into something else, but the laws were never changed requiring western wheat and barley farmers to participate.

No war for 70 years.
Have to wonder why the forced participation was never changed.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A cooperative can do the same things. No need to force anyone to participate in a decent cooperative.

It can't though. One thing the Wheat Board had, was guaranteed access to rail cars and ports (like Churchill). Without the legislation to force the Agribusiness that owns the ports to comply, they could just let the grain sit in regional silos until it's worthless, eliminating the competition and further driving small farmers out of business.

You know the more information we get about the WB, the more it sounds
like pure unadulterated Communism.

[Robair]

You shouldn't use words you don't fully understand.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

No war for 70 years.
Have to wonder why the forced participation was never changed.

I too wonder why Harper didn't just drop the mandatory participation part he objected to out of purely partisan reasons, instead deciding the farmers would not own the CWB even if they wanted to, and sold it off to a Saudi concern and investment fund to be dismantled and sold for parts.

Robair Robair:

:? You shouldn't use words you don't fully understand.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A cooperative can do the same things. No need to force anyone to participate in a decent cooperative.

It can't though. One thing the Wheat Board had, was guaranteed access to rail cars and ports (like Churchill). Without the legislation to force the Agribusiness that owns the ports to comply, they could just let the grain sit in regional silos until it's worthless, eliminating the competition and further driving small farmers out of business.

Funny, the Blue Diamond Almond Growers haven't had any such problems with the various railroads they worked with over the past 117 years: Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Western Pacific, Sacramento Northern, Santa Fe, and BNSF.

No legislation was needed to force anyone to do shit.

Seems to me you folks, for all as liberal and tolerant as you say you are, seem to think that government force is necessary to compel all you obstinate, corrupt, and evil Canadians to do the right things.

Once again, I think better of you people than you do.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A cooperative can do the same things. No need to force anyone to participate in a decent cooperative.

It can't though. One thing the Wheat Board had, was guaranteed access to rail cars and ports (like Churchill). Without the legislation to force the Agribusiness that owns the ports to comply, they could just let the grain sit in regional silos until it's worthless, eliminating the competition and further driving small farmers out of business.

Funny, the Blue Diamond Almond Growers haven't had any such problems with the various railroads they worked with over the past 117 years: Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Western Pacific, Sacramento Northern, Santa Fe, and BNSF.

No legislation was needed to force anyone to do shit.

Seems to me you folks, for all as liberal and tolerant as you say you are, seem to think that government force is necessary to compel all you obstinate, corrupt, and evil Canadians to do the right things.

Once again, I think better of you people than you do.

We like to live in the world where companies do the things that benefit them and us, but we also know that those things are rarely the things that also benefit us. Reality is different than the vision of the benevolent self interested market.

Billion dollar Agrium needs 2000 railroad cars for grain, Ivan McFarmerski needs 3 cars. Who does CN service first? Ivan McFarmerski finally gets cars to haul his grain to port after a few months of it rotting in the silos, and the port is owned by Agrium. Is Agrium going to give him a fair price for the grain? Will it be enough to cover costs? Or will Agrium just blow him off, and buy his farm in bankruptcy like it does to so many farmers every year?

Blue Diamond almond growers, I assume is the sort of Farmers collective that the Wheat board used to be? (it appears to be, I looked it up). If the Government of California broke them up, but not the Central California Almond Growers Association, how much clout would the individual farmers have getting rail access?

That's the problem here. Without the Wheat Board, and without the ability of Farmers to re-create their own version of it, our food supply becomes just another multinational asset.

As for legislation, you seem to have missed where we have a thriving bean, lentil, canola, soybean, etc. markets that fell outside the Wheat Board legislation. The problem with farmers getting together and re-creating it, is that market forces will prevent it. No one is saying we should bring back the Wheat Board, we are saying it should never have been sold off to begin with. That ship has sailed though.

And yet, this company seems to have taken the attitude that the Wheat Board is solely responsible for the demist of the Churchill port and railway leading to it.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We like to live in the world where companies do the things that benefit them and us, but we also know that those things are rarely the things that also benefit us. Reality is different than the vision of the benevolent self interested market.

Billion dollar Agrium needs 2000 railroad cars for grain, Ivan McFarmerski needs 3 cars. Who does CN service first? Ivan McFarmerski finally gets cars to haul his grain to port after a few months of it rotting in the silos, and the port is owned by Agrium. Is Agrium going to give him a fair price for the grain? Will it be enough to cover costs? Or will Agrium just blow him off, and buy his farm in bankruptcy like it does to so many farmers every year?

If Ivan has a contract for the three cars and he gets bigfooted in violation of the contract he can enforce the contract in court. If he thinks he can just ask for three cars like hailing a cab he's mistaken.

$1:

Blue Diamond almond growers, I assume is the sort of Farmers collective that the Wheat board used to be? (it appears to be, I looked it up). If the Government of California broke them up, but not the Central California Almond Growers Association, how much clout would the individual farmers have getting rail access?

The government of California would get fucked up the ass in Federal court for trying to break up a voluntary cooperative that operates under the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment.

That scenario is a non-starter in this country. Even in Commiefornia.

$1:

That's the problem here. Without the Wheat Board, and without the ability of Farmers to re-create their own version of it, our food supply becomes just another multinational asset.

It was before, too. That was the whole point of the port at Churchill and the railroad that served it.

$1:

As for legislation, you seem to have missed where we have a thriving bean, lentil, canola, soybean, etc. markets that fell outside the Wheat Board legislation.

Then from my perspective the CWB was hamstringing the wheat farmers since other products didn't need a marketing board. Like any other bureaucracy that's created for a 'great' government purpose it transformed over the years into a jobs and pension program for government employees and it actually did damage to the farmers it was supposed to protect and this is illustrated by the success and prosperity of farmers who were not beholden to government control.

$1:

The problem with farmers getting together and re-creating it, is that market forces will prevent it. No one is saying we should bring back the Wheat Board, we are saying it should never have been sold off to begin with. That ship has sailed though.

True. But there's nothing stopping them from joining together in a cooperative which would be more responsive to market forces than a government agency would be.

$1:

And yet, this company seems to have taken the attitude that the Wheat Board is solely responsible for the demise of the Churchill port and railway leading to it.

The biggest problem with Churchill is the shitty location. There's just no fixing that.