[Robair]

The wheat board is owned and controlled by farmers. It is not subsidized by tax payers.

This is not the government deciding what to do with government assets. It's the government deciding what to do with farmer's assets.

[sandorski]

QBall QBall:

sandorski sandorski:

QBall QBall:

Okay you're losing me: So there are farmers out there that don't want to use the CWB, but they are forced to due to legislation. So now the federal government wants to change it so that it's optional whether a farmer wants to use the CWB or not. The feds don't want to scrap the CWB, they just want to make it optional. Am I missing something?

Ya, allowing the exception is a way to scrap the Board.

So you're saying that given the choice so many farmers would opt not to use the CWB that the CWB would not be viable?

Not necessarily, but in time those who choose to opt out will be back to the Government complaining about Unfairness and other such things. Ya, they could just return, but their Ideological bent will just push them to have the Law changed rather than go back to the CWB.

[Robair]

This article spells it out fairly well (without partisanship): Show Farmers A Workable Plan

There seems to be a misconception in this thread that the wheat board's current system could be optional. From that article:

$1:

A task force struck by the Harper government in 2006 to study the CWB’s transition to an open market concluded what it called “CWB II,” might not survive.

“The task force recognizes that the ending of the monopoly powers is a significant change...” its report states. “There is a significant risk of its failure.”

The task force also said change should not be considered a “dual market,” but “marketing choice.”

“The latter term implies to some that the existing marketing approach — a CWB with monopoly powers — could coexist with an open-market approach,” the report says. “This is not possible.”

[martin14]

$1:

Farmers and grain companies could export on their own if they demonstrated they’ve found a higher return than the wheat board is offering.

“That would provide some stability and control of in-country handling of grain,” he said. “Producers would still be able to access producer cars and guys can still find markets on their own.”

I can't see what's the problem if a farmer can get a better price than the CWB,
can't undersell the CWB, why force them to accept a CWB price ?

[QBall]

Robair Robair:

QBall QBall:

The feds don't want to scrap the CWB, they just want to make it optional. Am I missing something?

There is either single desk or there is open market, there is no third option I'm aware of.

They want to throw out the single desk. You could call that scraping the wheat board if you want. It is certainly scrapping the single desk system.

But you were saying that there were all these farmers that were in support of the single desk system. If you were to make the CWB optional wouldn't the majority of farmers stay with the CWB? Or are the ones that would not use the CWB make up a large percentage of the total annual production?

[Thanos]

The CWB tossing those non-compliant farmers in jail a few years ago for selling outside the single desk certainly managed to destroy a lot of the support the CWB system had.

[Proculation]

I really don't understand how restricting freedom of trade is a better 'plan' except to protect a minority of interest groups while penalizing the majority. That's the evil of planned economy and government control at work.

[Freakinoldguy]

I find it completely strange that people would complain about monopolies in Canada fixing gas prices, cell phone prices and so on yet they have no problem supporting a monopoly like the Wheatboard.

And for posterities sake the Wheatboard was created by an act of Parliment, ergo it is a Government Organization, despite the fact that it's got elected members.

$1:

It is governed by a 15 person Board of Directors. Of which:
1.Ten of the directors are elected by grain farmers in the western Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of British Columbia.;
2.Four of the directors are appointed by Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board[2].;
3.The President of the Board is appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with certain restrictions including that the CWB must be consulted on the recommended candidate.[3]

[Proculation]

There is no such word as "monopolies" (plural) in a commercial sector. A monopoly is always government made.

[Freakinoldguy]

Proculation Proculation:

There is no such word as "monopolies" (plural) in a commercial sector. A monopoly is always government made.

Excuse me but?

Am I missing your point somehow? Monopolies is a correct word and they do exhist in the commercial sector.

$1:

Monopolies in Canada


CANADA - If you live in Canada chances are likely you eat, buy something or some service from a corporation so big its essentially a monopoly.

Take Tim Hortons for example. No, I am not dissing Tim Hortons, but I am pointing out what a huge company they are in contrast to other Canadian coffee/donut franchises.

Another prime example is Rogers, the cable / internet / phone conglomerate, which is so big and corrupt it phoned my 15 times in the last week trying to sell me a cable TV package. I am very tempted to cancel my internet from them, but I won't because they have a monopoly.

http://www.lilithnews.com/2009/11/monop ... anada.html

Individually they're a monopoly, collectively they're monopolies.

Is this what you were getting at?

[Proculation]

I guess it's just a translation thing again..

Like I said, there are monopolies in different sector but they can only exist one monopoly in a sector.

When you talk about gas prices, it's not a monopoly but a cartel/or and oligarchy. Just a technical thing.

[Freakinoldguy]

Since we're screwing around with words, here the one they used to describe the wheatboard.

monopsony

$1:

Definition: Monopsony is a state in which demand comes from one source. If there is only one customer for a certain good, that customer has a monopsony in the market for that good.

Analogous to monopoly, but on the demand side not the supply side.

A common theoretical implication is that the price of the good is pushed down near the cost of production. The price is not predicted to go to zero because if it went below where the suppliers are willing to produce, they won't produce.

Market power is a continuum from perfectly competitive to monopsony and there is an extensive practice/industry/science of measuring the degree of market power.

Examples: For workers in an isolated company town, created by and dominated by one employer, that employer is a monopsonist for some kinds of employment. For some kinds of U.S. medical care, the government program Medicare is a monopsony

Which is a word I can honestly say I never heard of before.

So I guess today wasn't a complete waste since I learned a new word.

[commanderkai]

I'm also not really sure what the positives or negatives over the CWB. If farmers are wanting to opt out of the system, why not let them?

[Unsound]

My question is, why is it so important for western farmers to be forced to sell to the cwb, but eastern farmers don't have to?

[fifeboy]

I betcha this guy wants to get rid of the CWB: