[andyt]

Don't our supply management schemes hurt us in negotiations with other countries for free trade? Isn't it one of the conditions of free trade with the EU to get rid of these protections? We're told over and over that Canada is a trading nation and relies on free trade to prosper. In that case don't we also have to open ourselves up to free trade, even if it hurts us?

[commanderkai]

Robair Robair:

Thumbs up for the last two posts. I'd rep you if I could Lemmy "You can't run a supply management scheme if you don't manage ALL the supply."

So why does Canada need to manage all of the supply? And more importantly, since grain farmers outside of the Prairies aren't managed (even if there aren't many of them) doesn't that hurt the argument?

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

So why does Canada need to manage all of the supply?

Not "all", but the more supply they control, the more price can be controlled.

commanderkai commanderkai:

And more importantly, since grain farmers outside of the Prairies aren't managed (even if there aren't many of them) doesn't that hurt the argument?

Of course. Similarly, OPEC would love to control ALL the world's supply of oil, but they make out alright controlling just the vast majority.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Not "all", but the more supply they control, the more price can be controlled.

Fair enough, but this begs the question, why does the price need to be controlled at all? Technically, isn't the price based on global demand for grains?

$1:

Of course. Similarly, OPEC would love to control ALL the world's supply of oil, but they make out alright controlling just the vast majority.

True enough, I can understand the benefit of controlling a huge chunk of Canada's (and, as a result of that, the world's) grain supply, and it does have value as a strategic resource (controlling a chunk of the world's food supply can hurt others, much like how OPEC can hurt others due to the sheer control of the oil supply), but is it necessary?

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Fair enough, but this begs the question, why does the price need to be controlled at all? Technically, isn't the price based on global demand for grains?

It's more complicated than that. We like certainty in our markets. Paying a slightly inflated price is a fair trade off to remove wild swings in prices. When the market price crashed in the pork industry in the early 90s, there were pig farmers dangling from their barn rafters all over Ontario. When agricultural markets aren't regulated, investment capital is scared away by the risk.

commanderkai commanderkai:

True enough, I can understand the benefit of controlling a huge chunk of Canada's (and, as a result of that, the world's) grain supply, and it does have value as a strategic resource (controlling a chunk of the world's food supply can hurt others, much like how OPEC can hurt others due to the sheer control of the oil supply), but is it necessary?

It's not necessary, but it definitely adds stability to the market, as well as making agriculture profitable. Without price controls, you remove incentives to invest in agriculture and, ultimately, chase that production out of the country. Personally, I don't mind paying a little more for my agricultural products in order to keep those industries viable and our food supply domestic.

[peck420]

Lemmy,

If OPEC is successful and not controlling 100% of the supply, couldn't the CWB be as well?

Or is Canada's total market share too small to breakup and survive?

[Lemmy]

peck420 peck420:

Lemmy,

If OPEC is successful and not controlling 100% of the supply, couldn't the CWB be as well?

Or is Canada's total market share too small to breakup and survive?

Good questions. You'd have to ask an expert on the wheat market. In general, the fewer producers, the easier it is to control supply. OPEC is, what, 11 of 15 oil producing countries (of any note). How many wheat farmers are there? Thousands?

[Robair]

How would you police that? How do you make sure the farmers that sign on to the CWB don't sell elsewhere?

When the CWB was first created, it was optional. Didn't work.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

That's great, let the 62% that voted to keep the CWB use that exclusively, and the 38% that want to market their own wheat can do so. But no, you think that farmers who want to market their own product like every other businessman in Canada and farmers in Ontario and Quebec, shouldn't be allowed to.

Talk about democracy.

62% is far more support than Harper got in the last election, but do we hear you decrying the failure of democracy over that?

[fifeboy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

RUEZ RUEZ:

That's great, let the 62% that voted to keep the CWB use that exclusively, and the 38% that want to market their own wheat can do so. But no, you think that farmers who want to market their own product like every other businessman in Canada and farmers in Ontario and Quebec, shouldn't be allowed to.

Talk about democracy.

62% is far more support than Harper got in the last election, but do we hear you decrying the failure of democracy over that?

Well said laddie!

[andyt]

Except we don't run our country by taking a vote for every decision the govt makes. And is it only up to the wheat growers to decide, or the country as a whole. The Reformacons ran on this platform, now they're implementing it. Can't really blame them for that.

[andyt]

Why can't those farmers that want it form a co-op to sell their wheat. have the govt delay axing the wheat board until the co-op is in place, maybe supply some start up funds and regulations. Make it so you can't just jump in and out of the co-op as yu want - you have to stay in for a certain period of time. It might not be as effective as the wheat board, but better than nothing and gets away from the protectionism. With wheat crops failing in parts of the world, wheat farmers should be making out like bandits right now.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Why can't those farmers that want it form a co-op to sell their wheat. have the govt delay axing the wheat board until the co-op is in place, maybe supply some start up funds and regulations. Make it so you can't just jump in and out of the co-op as yu want - you have to stay in for a certain period of time. It might not be as effective as the wheat board, but better than nothing and gets away from the protectionism. With wheat crops failing in parts of the world, wheat farmers should be making out like bandits right now.

Why re-invent the wheel? Why not fix the problems the 40% of farmers have with the CWB, and not have to start over again? They already have the supply chain in place . . .

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Why can't those farmers that want it form a co-op to sell their wheat. have the govt delay axing the wheat board until the co-op is in place, maybe supply some start up funds and regulations. Make it so you can't just jump in and out of the co-op as yu want - you have to stay in for a certain period of time. It might not be as effective as the wheat board, but better than nothing and gets away from the protectionism. With wheat crops failing in parts of the world, wheat farmers should be making out like bandits right now.

Why re-invent the wheel? Why not fix the problems the 40% of farmers have with the CWB, and not have to start over again? They already have the supply chain in place . . .

Well should the govt really be involved in selling wheat, and should it force people to sell their crops to them instead of going it on their own if they want? How do you fix that and keep the CWB?

[Robair]

The CWB board of directors is elected by farmers. The government is not in the business of selling wheat as it is.

There are plenty of candidates for board directors that run on a platform of ending the single desk system. If farmers wanted it gone, it would be gone already. Time after time, those candidates don't get elected.