[andyt]

The majority of farmers want it. Is that enough reason to force the ones that don't to sell to the CWB? I don't really know anything about the issue, am just asking questions, but it does seem wrong somehow to force somebody who produces something to sell to specified agent.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

The majority of farmers want it. Is that enough reason to force the ones that don't to sell to the CWB? I don't really know anything about the issue, am just asking questions, but it does seem wrong somehow to force somebody who produces something to sell to specified agent.

"Tyranny of the Majority", Andy. It's called 'democracy'. (not to be confused with 'capitalism').

Like Lemmy said, unless you control the whole supply or the majority, you don't have a monopoly. If the CWB doesn't, will companies like Agrium work for the Farmer, or for their own interests?

Which then is more fair to the farmer?

[andyt]

Well, it sounds like they would control the majority, since most farmers want it. Does producing wheat really require a monopoly? Most industries are better off without them, no?

As for democracy - western wheat farmers are not a democratic entity. As I asked above, is the govt going to take votes from a certain group of people every time they want to make policy? That's not how a representative democracy works.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Well, it sounds like they would control the majority, since most farmers want it. Does producing wheat really require a monopoly? Most industries are better off without them, no?

As for democracy - western wheat farmers are not a democratic entity. As I asked above, is the govt going to take votes from a certain group of people every time they want to make policy? That's not how a representative democracy works.

I can't think of too many industries that produce the basics of modern life that aren't monopolies, or nearly so. Oil, gas, electricity, water, sewage, transportation, food. All have very few independent players in them, or are government monopolies (as they should be).

And you are confusing 'democracy' with 'capitaism' again. If 80% of western wheat farmers all decide they are going to do something like form a co-op to pool wheat and sell it worldwide, that is democracy. If western pulse farmers all got together and decide they also will do something similar, that too is democracy.

And what is wrong with the government representing the wishes of the people they are elected to represent? Isn't that pretty much their job description? I know we aren't used to them actually doing it, but we shouldn't be that surprised when they actually do.

[andyt]

If you want to monopolize the basics of modern life, shouldn't all agriculture and meat production be monopolized? What's special about wheat? Agriculture seems to work best, be most productive, if the state keeps it's hands off it.

Not confusing at all - as I said, let those farmers form their co-op. Where it becomes undemocratic is when you the force the rest of the farmers to do the same thing.

The govt is elected to represent all the people - so they'd have to have a vote of all Canadians - we did that, it's called an election. We don't run the country by referenda only of special interest groups.

[jeff744]

Just watch as within 5 years of blocking the CWB half the western farmers are nearly broke because every time they get a good harvest the prices drop to next to zero and when they have years with basically nothing coming off the field the prices rival gold. The CWB exists to keep farmers running in a business that is already extremely hard to make money, it is reaching the point that you almost need agriculture and business degrees to successfully run a farm.

[andyt]

How does the CWB manage prices. How do they keep prices up in good years and down in bad? How can they have that much power over the worldwide wheat market? Will exposing farmers to more competition make them more efficient, so the less efficient ones go broke but the more efficient ones thrive?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

If you want to monopolize the basics of modern life, shouldn't all agriculture and meat production be monopolized? What's special about wheat? Agriculture seems to work best, be most productive, if the state keeps it's hands off it.

As we've discussed here before, the small farm is all but extinct; the factory farm is the norm. As Robair already said, the CWB is not government, and already run by Farmers.

andyt andyt:

Not confusing at all - as I said, let those farmers form their co-op. Where it becomes undemocratic is when you the force the rest of the farmers to do the same thing.

Like I said, they already have thier co-op. It's called the Canadian Wheat Board; an institution that already has a market for their grain and ways to get that grain to buyers. I've often said I didn't like that wheat farmers were forced to sell to them, but I've also said that I'm not a farmer, so my opinion should be taken as such.

andyt andyt:

The govt is elected to represent all the people - so they'd have to have a vote of all Canadians - we did that, it's called an election. We don't run the country by referenda only of special interest groups.

Yes, we do all the time. 'Wheat Farmers' is a subset of 'Farmers' is a subset of 'Voters'. 'The Poor' is a subset of 'working people' is a subset of 'voters'. Laws are made for this 'special interest group' called the 'poor' all the time. Just because it doens't affect 100% of the population 100% of the time does not mean it is a 'special interest group'. One eats an elephant one bite at a time.

[DrCaleb]

jeff744 jeff744:

Just watch as within 5 years of blocking the CWB half the western farmers are nearly broke because every time they get a good harvest the prices drop to next to zero and when they have years with basically nothing coming off the field the prices rival gold. The CWB exists to keep farmers running in a business that is already extremely hard to make money, it is reaching the point that you almost need agriculture and business degrees to successfully run a farm.

Bingo!

andyt andyt:

How does the CWB manage prices. How do they keep prices up in good years and down in bad? How can they have that much power over the worldwide wheat market? Will exposing farmers to more competition make them more efficient, so the less efficient ones go broke but the more efficient ones thrive?

See: monopoly. (not the board game)

[andyt]

Not sufficient explanation. In a good harvest year, there will be a glut of wheat. I can see the CWB paying farmers an inflated price for their wheat, but how do they then market that wheat at that higher price? Do they keep wheat back for leaner years, or what?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Not sufficient explanation. In a good harvest year, there will be a glut of wheat. I can see the CWB paying farmers an inflated price for their wheat, but how do they then market that wheat at that higher price? Do they keep wheat back for leaner years, or what?

Your subscription to Google expire? I'm sure your answer is on their website, or some other farm based site. Like I said, I'm not a farmer.

[Curtman]

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 don't the farmers who don't want a CWB, grow canola or something else? Nobody forces them to grow wheat, they know the rules when they plan their crops. The CWB is the most successful grain marketing company in the world. Leave it alone.

[Robair]

Link

$1:

This summer, Canadian grain farmers have more on their minds than just the coming harvest. Shortly after achieving a majority in the recent federal election, the Conservative government announced plans to act on its long-standing plan to end the Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) monopoly on the marketing of spring wheat, durum and barley.

The complexities of grain marketing are not something that typically captures the attention of urban Canadians. Nevertheless, if the government proceeds as planned, the outcome could mean more than just the dismantling of the CWB and a fundamental reorganization of the grain system in Canada.

The contemporary CWB was established in 1935 to guarantee wheat pool payments to prairie farmers during the Depression. In 1942, the single desk system was established, whereby farmers were mandated to market their crops through the CWB as a means of managing the grain supply during wartime. Following the war, the single desk monopoly was retained to increase the market power of Canadian producers on the volatile world market.

The CWB is collectively controlled and funded by the farmers on whose behalf it negotiates sales and to whom its proceeds are returned. The CWB also plays a key role in coordinating orderly transportation of farmers' grain to market. Since 1998, the CWB has been governed by a 15-member board of directors, 10 of whom are directly accountable to the Prairie farmers who elect them. The single desk is always an issue in board elections. Farmers have consistently elected boards whose majorities support retaining the single desk.

This leads one to wonder whose interests might be served by dismantling the CWB.

Beyond ideology, the desire to eliminate the single desk has been partly driven by a minority of very large, and very vocal, producers whose size makes them confident they could fare better marketing their grain on their own. These large players are also well-positioned to negotiate favourable terms with the handful of private conglomerates that now dominate grain-handling on the prairies.

Not surprisingly, these large grain companies also oppose the single desk and the CWB. Giants such as Viterra, Inc. and James Richardson International stand to gain significantly from the demise of the CWB and the leverage it affords to producers.

As Andrew Paterson, CEO of Paterson Global Foods said recently, "We've been preparing for this for five years." It has also been widely-reported that massive U.S. agribusiness conglomerate Bunge Ltd. has announced plans to make a major play in the newly open Canadian grain market.

With the end of the mandatory single desk, responsibility for grain marketing will shift from a collective organization over which farmers have democratic control to a "competitive" system dominated by a few transnational conglomerates over which they have none.

Absent the security and competitive advantage provided by the CWB, the ultimate demise of small-scale grain farming in Canada becomes increasingly likely. Once this happens, the economic and social infrastructures of grain-dependent rural communities could atrophy beyond repair, and an entire way of life will have been legislated out of existence.

This will not register on the world grain markets nor, sadly, will it be noticed in most of urban Canada.

Still, the potential demise of the CWB suggests that those of us who live in cities have good reason to pay attention to what is happening in the countryside. Something to do with the character of Canadian democratic life might be at stake.

In its campaign against the single desk, the Conservative government has routinely invoked the language of "choice," framing its intentions in terms of expanding farmers' options for marketing their produce. State intervention that forcibly undermines the CWB will accomplish exactly the opposite.

The government disingenuously suggests that the CWB could continue to market grain for farmers who choose its services in a competitive environment. As CWB Chair Allen Oberg has pointed out, lacking grain-handling infrastructure of its own, and without adequate assets to build or acquire it, the CWB would be beholden for storage and transportation to the very companies with which it is supposed to compete. Under these conditions, absent regulated access to facilities, a voluntary single desk marketing agency would be impossible to sustain.

Thus, the end of the CWB will remove from farmers the very choice that a majority of them are most likely to make, as confirmed in repeated surveys and board elections: to market their grain collectively, through a single desk that is directly accountable to them, rather than to distant shareholders.

Electoral success in the west has led the Conservative government to claim a democratic mandate to enact this radical transformation of economic and social life on the prairies. The CWB is currently asking producers themselves to vote on whether they prefer to sell their wheat and barley through an open market, or to continue with the mandatory single desk. It is widely expected that a majority of farmers will once again choose the latter option.

Perhaps this explains why Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz has declared in advance that the results of the CWB's democratic plebiscite are irrelevant to the government's plans.

This alone should provoke the concern of city-dwellers. In light of what is happening to the Canadian Wheat Board and the communities it serves, we might ask ourselves: which essential institution of Canadian public life will be next and what, if anything, will we be able to do about it when the time comes?

Darin Barney is Canada Research Chair in Technology & Citizenship and Associate Professor of Communication Studies at McGill University. His present research, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, investigates the social impact of technological change in the grain economy on the Canadian prairies.

[andyt]

Thanks for that. Sounds like we should keep the CWB, tho I have to wonder if trying to maintain small scale agriculture is swimming against the tide.

[jeff744]

andyt andyt:

Thanks for that. Sounds like we should keep the CWB, tho I have to wonder if trying to maintain small scale agriculture is swimming against the tide.

It's no longer cost effective to have a small farm, if you buy a combine you are making a massive investment and if you are not running it all harvest you are losing money, then you have to purchase additional equipment for planting, tilling, etc. Small farmers generally live on used equipment which can be old enough to verge on being called antiques where finding a new part requires finding another machine like it and salvaging it.