Destroying the Canadian Wheat Board and Prairie Communities

Farms have been consolidating, and communities shrinking and disappearing, for decades. There is nothing special about this moment in time.

There is no reason to preserve agricultural and timber communities any more than to preserve mining towns and outports.

Let the people who pay that $800 million use the money for something else, and the labour freed up by farm consolidation be employed elsewhere. Win-win.

But it ain't win-win.

IrC - That's "fuck you Jack, I'm OK" pseudo libertarianism at it's worst. The $800 million is income from abroad that helps significantly with our trade balance and would be income lost. And as for the labour freed up by farm consolidation, we have a term out here for farmers forced of the land - apartment block caretakers. Many of those farmers have done nothing else their entire lives and are not well equipped for the modern job market but you wouldn't give a damn about that. And we won't talk about a way of life destroyed which, of course, you don't care about either.

That's a damn sad excuse for win-win. Especially when it it done for no other reason than than a ritual sacrifice to the neocon ideology.

"Farms have been consolidating, and communities shrinking and disappearing, for decades. There is nothing special about this moment in time."

Just because something bad is happening over time, doesn't mean I want to make it happen even faster. Yes, farmers are disappearing - we can keep it at the current pace, or we can do something that will make it happen dramatically faster.

And I'm real tired of this assumption that better or as good jobs will automatically appear for "displaced labor". Doesn't have to happen that way, and it often doesn't. The best evidence I am aware of is that the specific workers displaces by outsourcing, for example, do not find as good a jobs on average. Other people may benefit - but those specific people do not.

Finally - the international food market, especially in grain, is about the most government subsidized and manipulated market in existence (only foreign currency markets are probably more manipulated). If the Wheat Board makes it so that we get 800 million that we wouldn't get otherwise, competing against highly subsidized American and Eruopean farmers (and they are, per capita and gross, more highly subsidized than we are) SIMPLY by pooling selling power into a centralized desk, then I'm all for it.

I wrote a lengthy comment, but decided it was too good, so it turned into a post. Long story short, small farms can't compete with the economies of scale the huge farms can right now anyway - the one's that are going to survive have been moving toward oilseeds and specialty crops for years. The big farms that think it would be great to get rid of the CWB are going to probably take the worst of the bonage if it happens, and will take it out on the Tories. This'll be the new NEP.

Can't win a referendum? Hell, they obviously don't think they can even win the wheat board elections, which is why they've arbitrarily stricken 36 percent of the names off the voting list.

Northern farmers will be disproportionately hurt by this, because they have to haul their grain much further, and won't be able to take advantage of this so-called competition even to the same extent that southern farmers would.

Don - In general I agree with your comments and your post. Industrial agriculture especially in cereal crops is sustainable neither economically nor environmentally.

Much of the push towards "bigger is better" is the result of the corprate domination of Ag Colleges across the country. There is a trend towards a split in agriculture in the west (one that has existed to a greater extent in the east for a long time). On the one hand, there is factory farming which is out of reach of most farmers who simply don't have the resources to expand at the rate necessary to participate even if they were comfortable with multimillion dollar debt loads.

On the other, is a move towards small scale agriculture that is more labour intensive and is producing commodities priced in dollars per pound rather than pounds per dollar. The second, which is the one I'm involved in, is potentially far more profitable, often has proportionally much lower capital costs, can create many more jobs and is environmentally sustainable.

One of my favourite quotes that wonderfully describes the difference is from a farmer who said "I used to have a 1000 acre farm with very limited potential. Now I have a 100 acre farm with unlimited potential." The existence of the CWB is irrelevant to me in terms of what I do. It is, however, highly relevant to many of my friends and neighbours who are fighting to make a living in a way that lets them live in the way they want to.

>The $800 million is income from abroad that helps significantly with our trade balance and would be income lost.

There's no point discussing the economics unless all sides are examined. None at all. The $800 million comes from someone else's income. Wouldn't it be nice if they could buy more wheat, or other foodstuffs, or do something else with the money?

>Many of those farmers have done nothing else their entire lives and are not well equipped for the modern job market...

It's a problem, but it's not insurmountable.

>And we won't talk about a way of life destroyed which, of course, you don't care about either.

Ways of life have been evolving for centuries. That's a tug of nostalgia you're feeling.

>The $800 million is income from abroad that helps significantly with our trade balance and would be income lost.

There's no point discussing the economics unless all sides are examined. None at all. The $800 million comes from someone else's income. Wouldn't it be nice if they could buy more wheat, or other foodstuffs, or do something else with the money?

>Many of those farmers have done nothing else their entire lives and are not well equipped for the modern job market...

It's a problem, but it's not insurmountable.

>And we won't talk about a way of life destroyed which, of course, you don't care about either.

Ways of life have been evolving for centuries. That's a tug of nostalgia you're feeling.

>Just because something bad is happening over time

Ian, you're maligning the same economic processes that took many people off farms and reduced the portion of our work force engaged in agriculture. To characterize it as "bad" is willing misdirection on your part. If you're going to lie, nothing you write is worth reading.

No-one can guarantee higher incomes and standards of living. But here we are. I doubt very much that you're in a unique position of knowing which ways of life to preserve and which to let go.

>Finally - the international food market, especially in grain, is about the most government subsidized and manipulated market in existence

Right. And agricultural subsidies and other forms of support are believed to be one of the main, if not the most, aggravating factors keeping poor nations poor. But you want to preserve that. What a fine economist you make.

The $800 million comes from someone else's income. Wouldn't it be nice if they could buy more wheat, or other foodstuffs, or do something else with the money?
They can do whatever they want with there money. If they don't want to buy our grain they don't have to. Isn't that your beloved free market in operation?

Ian, you're maligning the same economic processes that took many people off farms and reduced the portion of our work force engaged in agriculture..
In the first place whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion and nothing more. And I see nothing good about it.

And then in the next breath you say:

I doubt very much that you're in a unique position of knowing which ways of life to preserve and which to let go.
So who died and made you god that you get to decide which ways of life to preserve and which to let go and we don't?

And the CWB is not a subsidy. If you want to talk subsidies go yell at the US governmnet and the EU. Perhaps, if they eliminated their subsidies we wouldn't need the CWB to protect our farmers.

There is no free trade market in place and I believe what Ian is railing against is the fraudulent "Free Trade Fundamentalism" that pretends there is. Matt Yglesias called bullshit in this quote:

Halliburton is not a company competing in anything resembling a "free" market and has no desire to be such a firm, any more than agribusiness, the health care industry, or natural resource extraction firms are participating in a free market. The point for all these companies is just to feed at the public trough, and the role of the GOP is to ensure that they will be well fed."

Just substitute your favourite local flavour of neo-con for "GOP".

The $800 million comes from someone else's income.

One place it comes from is a large United Kingdom bakery producer whose spokesman is amazed that our government is even contemplating doing away with the single desk.

Beard said he doesn't buy the argument that grain marketed by individual farmers would be cheaper, since any gains would be wiped out by the extra effort required to deal with farmers individually.

"Ian, you're maligning the same economic processes that took many people off farms and reduced the portion of our work force engaged in agriculture. To characterize it as "bad" is willing misdirection on your part. If you're going to lie, nothing you write is worth reading."

Let me put it to you this way, you pathetic little insect - if you don't read my stuff, not only won't I give a damn, but the collective IQ of the readers will take a 50 point jump up.

Nor are they not the same forces that took the majority of Canadians off farms, those forces are operating irrespective of the existence of the wheat board. How do I know this? Every Western nation after WWII had the majority of its farmers leave farming - no matter how many boards or centralized buying systems and so on they had.

One reason I call things "bad" is when they do things the people involved don't like having happen. The majority of farmers when farmers were the majority of the population didn't much like being farmers. (And in any case, family farms also had a huge proportion end not because the farmers left but because their kids left) You probably wouldn't have liked being a farmer either - ever done farm labor without mechanical aid? I have, it's amongst the hardest, most miserable bloody work you could ever do.

The majority of farmers today do not want out of the business. They like the life. That makes them losing the life a "bad" thing - unless you're one of those commies who think you know better than other people what's good for them.

I am far more aware of the agricultural problems of the third world than you likely are, having lived in those countries and written multiple articles on the issue. Getting rid of the wheat board will make so little difference it won't even be noticed - what needs to happen to make a difference is first to allow third world countries to have tariffs (which I'm sure you disagree with) and second the end of subsidies in Europe and the US - don't ask me, believe the negotiaters at the DOHA round from those third world countries - that's what they wanted. I will add that if the US and Europe reduce their subsidies I would be more than happy for us to reduce our direct subsidies to our farmers (which are substantial, but not nearly as substantial as theirs, per capita).

International trade is heavily managed, the moment that other countries agree to stop manipulating their fucking currencies the way almost all of Asia has been doing for decades, and drop their internal controls (if you think you can sell something to Europe without meeting their internal product criteria, you have another thing coming), I'll be willing to consider - and only consider, mind you, ending the board. Until then, they can go fuck themselves, along with you, because I'm a Canadian first, and I don't believe in unilateral disarmament which will hurt ordinary Canadian farmers and enrich transnational agricultural combines.

Beard is, economically speaking, by the way, making a sound argument. People who buy grain, buy huge bulk. They don't want to deal with huge numbers of small farmers, it eats up any savings they might make and is a pain besides - which is another reason why the smaller ones will be driven out of business - they will have to sell to middlemen, at a discount to the final price.

The huge problem being completely overlooked by all of the posters here is this.
If the Wheat board goes, large streches of the northern prairies will be abandoned, becoming unprofitable to grow grain, no matter what size the farm. Grain farms now in Saskatchwan are measured in square km, and still barely scratch out a living, with most farmers having off farm jobs. No wheat board, no farms, no grain.

The great political irony is that most of these regions voted conservative, ushering in death as a dinner guest. The NDP was born in these areas, but for the most part, the NDP is now an urban party, and has abandoned its rural roots. Planks in the party platform now have no resonance at all with the rural communities, and frankly, it doen't even look like they're trying.

Trying to preserve agricultral communities makes infinitly more sense than preserving mining towns. When a ore deposit runs out, there is no more reason to have the community there. People know this when they move there, the mine will die, and the town will too. Agriculture, done right, will last until the sun explodes.

Does anyone have any idea of how this would affect consumers? If what we're looking at is cheaper food prices - which would generate proportionately higher gains for low-income households - then I don't see why progressives should be upset.

"Does anyone have any idea of how this would affect consumers? If what we're looking at is cheaper food prices - which would generate proportionately higher gains for low-income households - then I don't see why progressives should be upset."

This is not the only criterion. The point is to establish self-sustaining systems by which people are able to earn decent livings, not obtain a temporary price drop followed by another drop in wages followed by a temporary price drop...

"If the Wheat board goes, large streches of the northern prairies will be abandoned, becoming unprofitable to grow grain, no matter what size the farm. Grain farms now in Saskatchwan are measured in square km, and still barely scratch out a living, with most farmers having off farm jobs. No wheat board, no farms, no grain."

That's part of what I was trying to say.

"Does anyone have any idea of how this would affect consumers? If what we're looking at is cheaper food prices - which would generate proportionately higher gains for low-income households - then I don't see why progressives should be upset."

Gordon, I haven't seen any studies. However, the majority of grain is sold overseas, not to Canadian markets. Even if there was a reduction I cannot imagine it would be huge, and to be frank, I don't see that intermediaries would necessarily pass on savings.

Even if the net gain to consumers is larger than the net loss to farmers (which need not be the case, given the international component and because savings may not be passed on) the loss to individual farmers is much more than the buck or month or so that consumers might save.

And finally, the neoliberal argument that reduction in product prices outweighs losses of jobs and incomes isn't one I buy as universally true.

I can't parse that. Why should high food prices - something that benefits a vanishingly small fraction of the population, and which hurts low-income households most - be something that deserves the support of progressives?

Economic history is pretty clear on this point: cheaper food is a prerequisite for any sort of significant improvement in the welfare of those with low incomes.

If what we're looking at is cheaper food prices

If you go back to the article I linked to, that isn't necessarily the case. What the representative of that bakery is saying is that dealing with a number of individual suppliers instead of a single desk will increase his company's purchasing costs. I presume that increase would be passed on to the consumers. I don't think it's by any means inevitable that consumers would see any savings from the end of the CWB.

Ian, we cross-posted.

If there's a global market, and if Canadian farmers can't affect world prices, then what's the point of the CWB?

If Canadian farmers can use the CWB to make food prices higher than what they would have otherwise been, why is this a good thing for consumers?

What percentage of that 800 million will subsidize poor families food? Break it down, back of envelope - how much is actually foreign money, since most grain is sold to foreign countries - how much is Canadian, of that what percentage of the population is poor enough that food is a major problem for them? How much will it save an average poor family a year?

What percentage of that will then be offset because of reduced internal demand by the amount of the 800 million which is foreign money simply lost from the Canadian economy?

And what's the demand effect of that 800 million dollars?

When you do it all, I can't but see the upside of all of this as being both uncertain (the gains may not be passed on to consumers in Canada) and if they exist, pretty bloody small. On the other hand, the downside of specific farmers who will lose their jobs, and prairie communities devestated, seems pretty heavy

What the poor need, and what farmers need, is jobs.

Not to mention the fact that prairie communities will be devestated. That may not have an economic value, but it has a value.

Finally, again: what's the problem with giving the farmers a referendum as required by law? I'm willing to accept what they say, even if I disagree with it. Why aren't all the proponents of this actually willing to let farmers have a vote in it?

Perhaps because they know most farmers know this would screw them, hard.

pogge: I just don't see how this works. The WCB presumably exists to assure *higher* prices for producers. I don't seee how this can somehow translate into *lower* prices for =consumers*.

"If there's a global market, and if Canadian farmers can't affect world prices, then what's the point of the CWB?

If Canadian farmers can use the CWB to make food prices higher than what they would have otherwise been, why is this a good thing for consumers?"

Acting as a selling block which controls 20% of the market, and has some of the highest quality grain in the world, of course they can get a higher price. That's the whole point of the exercise.

But I do see your point - if grain is global market (it isn't quite, some grain goes for more than others) then if Canada is raising global grain prices it's raising them for Canadian consumers. However, I remain unconvinced that enough of that 800 million value would flow to consumers to make up for the lost jobs etc... I listed above.

"pogge: I just don't see how this works. The WCB presumably exists to assure *higher* prices for producers. I don't seee how this can somehow translate into *lower* prices for =consumers*."

If I can buy all my food in one place when I shop - rather than having to buy from multiple vendors, it is cheaper even if every other vendor is slightly cheaper than the centralized one - if I have costs associated with buyinger per vendor.

Remember this isn't a perfect market where only producers and buyers exist, there are intermediaries and costs for moving between those intermediaries. If you have to go to a bunch, that costs. And middlemen take cuts, and will take larger cuts than the Wheat Board did, for moving small farmers stuff.

Ian, you haven't answered either of my two questions:

1) Does the WCB affect world prices?
2) If the answer to 1) is 'yes', how does this market power improve consumer welfare (in particular, those with low incomes)?

Damn. I type too slowly.

Alright, there's a bit of a pause, so I'll sum up.

Yes, the WCB generates benefits for producers (although those benefits can't be very large if there are producers who are willing to live without them). But that's not how policies should be evaluated; the proper criterion is how they benefit consumers.

"The WCB presumably exists to assure *higher* prices for producers."

Stable prices would be a more accurate statement.

Why did I keep repeat WCB for CWB? I don't know either.

Fair enough. But these days, there are any number of financial instruments that producers can use to hedge against price volatility.

But that's not how policies should be evaluated; the proper criterion is how they benefit consumers.

None of us are just consumers unless we're also independently wealthy enough that all we have to do is consume. If something benefits me as a consumer in the short term but screws me out of a job in the long term then I would argue that your only "proper criterion" is short-sighted.

Um, I did answer your question Stephen. I'm willing to posit that they increase prices:

"Acting as a selling block which controls 20% of the market, and has some of the highest quality grain in the world, of course they can get a higher price. That's the whole point of the exercise.

But I do see your point - if grain is global market (it isn't quite, some grain goes for more than others) then if Canada is raising global grain prices it's raising them for Canadian consumers. However, I remain unconvinced that enough of that 800 million value would flow to consumers to make up for the lost jobs etc... I listed above."

Or to put it another way - since the cost of the higher grain prices are paid by all consumers, everywhere, not just Canada, but all the benefits of the WCB higher prices are giving to Canadians, we win net.

As I noted in a prior message, I might consider getting read of the board, if other countries are also willing to give up their methods of subsidizing their farmers.

Canada is far from the worst offender. We are not even close to as bad the EU and the US, and I'm not willing to unilaterally disarm and devestate our farming community.

Stephen - Part of the problem is that a cheap food policy is ultimately unsustainable. North Americans spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on food than almost anywhere else in the world. Of course this has freed up money to buy all sorts of other things. Unfortunately, the cheap food policy is being subsidized by farmers (of all sizes).

To clarify Yeti's point a bit, if you measure your land in acres on the prairies, it isn't a farm it's a big back yard. Grain farms here are measured in quarters (a 1/4 section - 160 acres) or sections (640 acres or 1 square mile. A modest farm big enough to be profitable is 10 quarters (1600 acres or about 2 1/2 sq. mi). A large farm is about 15 sections (10,000acres or 15 sq. mi.) The 320 or 480 acre farm grandpa used to run is just a hobby farm if we are talking about straight grain farming.

If I am reading the prices correctly, the price for #1cwrs is about $3.60 a bushel today. At a yield of 30 bu/acre that gives about $108/acre gross revenue and bump that up to $126/acre at a yield of 35bu/acre or $144/acre if you are really lucky and get 40bu/acre.

Some years back I calculated the input costs for growing wheat at roughly $100/acre. Changes in farm practices and fuel etc may have moved that somewhat. This means a profit of $8 - 44/acre after inputs but before any capital costs and debt servicing etc are taken into consideration. Keep in mind that tractors can run to $200k and I know farms with $250 - $400k in chemical and fertilizer bills. Many of these farms are in debt for well over $1 million. Whatever is left at the end, if anything, belongs to the farmer.

Generally speaking, it ain't much unless you get a very good year. And in my area, there was no crop for 3 straight years. In the "old days" of 40 or 50 years ago when farmers were largely self sufficient, that could be managed but not today. The bizarre fact is that most farmers don't grow any of their own food any more.

With grain often priced below the cost of production, small operators are simply unable to compete even with the CWB. Unfortunately many of them are not in a position to make the jump to non traditional small scale agriculture because of lead times and the fact that they are already in debt and having to work off farm just to pay the bills.

Meanwhile the large family owned and factory farms are unable to withstand the total loss of a crop. Naturally occurring super droughts combined with climate change can wipe out almost the entire agriculture industry in the matter of a few years.

A cheap food policy only seems to be in the best interests of consumers. In the end, it has a severely negative impact on consumers because there is no cushion in the system. Profitable farms benefit everyone including consumers. Industrial agriculture, like every other large industry is immensely capital intensive. A 10 or 12 (much less 20) year super-drought of the kind we have had in the past would not only result in a massive increase in food prices but the destruction of the means of production as well. The only people who might survive such a scenario without massive government intervention are those engaging in small scale agriculture. Suddenly the guy with the 20 acre market garden he can irrigate might be the star of the industry.

None of us are just consumers unless we're also independently wealthy enough that all we have to do is consume. If something benefits me as a consumer in the short term but screws me out of a job in the long term then I would argue that your only "proper criterion" is short-sighted.

Danke schoen, pogge. That's what I *ought* to have said.

>Let me put it to you this way, you pathetic little insect

Nice high-IQ response.

>Nor are they not the same forces that took the majority of Canadians off farms

As you wrote there are distinctive features, but the sum of the move from lesser to greater productivity is all I was writing about. There may be a role for a marketing board for those who wish to go along, but a marketing board is either capable of meeting a need and surviving in a market place with competition (farms which sell without going through the board), or it is not. If it is not, then one can assume the presence of an economic support. In this case, the support is indirect - the board's position is protected by regulation.

>One reason I call things "bad" is when they do things the people involved don't like having happen.

Few people like to lose their jobs. I don't dispute that. If you are lamenting the personal upheaval, fair enough, but irrelevant. My point is that it's not economically "bad". We both know people in general, even the ones we label as "living in poverty", are vastly better off than their predecessors on a generation by generation basis. Was the cost (disruption of the lives of families) of getting from "there" to "here" worth it?

>Getting rid of the wheat board will make so little difference

You sound like you're arguing against Kyoto. Whether the impact is small is not an objection because that's not actually the point - a tiny blow against managed trade is just something that might happen.

"Canada is far from the worst offender. We are not even close to as bad the EU and the US, and I'm not willing to unilaterally disarm and devestate our farming community."

Substitute "industrial" for "farming".

Well, nice to see Harper and his crew looking out for working families... just as long as they are not farm families.
Stealing the farmers' votes; very slick. Those farmers who did not ship grain because of drought or flood damage to their crops are somehow now not eligible to vote. What kind of sense does that make? Once they get a crop, they will be shipping and selling grain, but too late for Harper's gravy train.
Sounds like Harper wants to kick them while they are down. Those working families are in his way. Why is Harper and his crew so afraid of a fair vote?
Someone on a post somewhere recently said they actually hated Harper. I am getting close. In fact, if I was given the opportunity to meet Harper I would refuse. *shudder*
Let's see Harper and his minions electioneer out on the prairies come spring if he actually manages to gut the Wheat Board.
Working families everywhere should beware this man. He has no one's interests in mind except his own and his special cronies.
Harper will stand up for Canada once he's finished putting the boots to those whose real values make such a mockery of his pretend ones.
Gut the wheat board, Harper. Ambrose will finish the farmers off, and in a decade or two it will be all bare and fresh for you to sell it to the States and Mexico.

None of us are just consumers unless we're also independently wealthy enough that all we have to do is consume. If something benefits me as a consumer in the short term but screws me out of a job in the long term then I would argue that your only "proper criterion" is short-sighted.

This is exactly the wrong way to frame the debate. The relevant definition of 'consumers' is those who consume what wheat producers sell - that is to say, pretty much everybody. Some of those consumer produce wheat, and for them, the benefits of high wheat prices will outweigh the costs of higher food prices.

The next question is: how many people gain, and how many lose? I've not been able - after a cursory, 5-minute search - to come up with an estimate for the share of wheat farmers as a percentage of those employed. But since agricultural workers account for about 2.2% of all workers in Canada, we have an upper bound of just how many people actually benefit, and a lower bound for the number of people who lose out.

If it can be convincingly argued that wheat farmers are over-represented among the ranks of Canada's poor, then a transfer of income from those who are not wheat farmers to those who are will be a progressive measure. If can't, then it isn't.

Here's a different question- how much money will it save poor /Canadian/ consumers, vs. how much money will it cost /Canadian/ farmers?

I would add that I am not convinced that all savings would be passed on to consumers - my guess is that much of those savings would go to profits. Even if all savings go to consumers, not all consumers in question are Canadian, while all the farmers are.

Fair enough. But I still think the distributional question should be dealt with. Higher food prices affect low-income households proportionately more than than high-income households.

I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here. Farmers, rural residents, more than any other voting bloc, have chosen this government.

They chose it because child care issues didn't appeal to them. They chose it because they don't want to register their guns. They, and not I, voted for this government.

As a result of their vote, my family can only get child care 2 days a week, and there is no solution in the works. As a result of their vote, plenty of other essential programs are being destroyed (i.e. Court Challenges).

My family are prairie farmers. I don't want to see the Wheat Board destroyed, and I don't want to see the end of our rural communities. But that's what will happen as a result of the ideological policies this government, the one elected by farmers, chooses.

My sympathies are limited at this point. They got the government they voted for. Yippee for them. At least they won't have to worry about the government taking away their guns after the bailiff siezes them.

Mr. Gordon, are you suggesting that if Canadian wheat farmers can get a higher price or a lower price for their wheat on the world market, it is their responsibility to opt for the lower price? Even if it means they will go out of business and cease to sell wheat at all? And that Canadian government policy should be to push for the lower price? Even if it means many Canadian farmers will go out of business and cease to sell wheat at all?

Well, gee, the lowest price they could arrange would be to just give the wheat away to the world for free. I guess the Canadian government's *real* responsibility is to force them to give it away and end the existence of a Canadian farm sector. That's economics, is it?

I probably wouldn't be quite so snarky if you hadn't been studiously ignoring some of the things said. I'll try rephrasing one of the key ones in a way more conducive to an economist understanding it:
The Wheat board represents an increase in efficiency. Thus, with the Wheat board, farmers get (on average) a higher price, yes. But buyers are able to avoid high transaction costs and middlemen that buying from a whole bunch of independent farmers would involve. By avoiding those costs, customers of the wheat board actually get a better price than they would without the wheat board; farmers and customers share the benefit of the reduced costs and/or jointly pocket what middlemen would have been taking.

Meanwhile, talking for a moment in terms of raw dollar cost/benefit for Canada, let's see--we have $800 million extra going to Canadian farmers. Now ignoring for a moment that if this Beard guy quoted by Pogge is to be believed, that $800 million will no how no way be going to consumers if the board is eliminated, but rather go to transaction costs and unproductive middlemen--ignoring that, let's talk what proportion is sold abroad. I've seen "the majority" and "most" floated. Say three quarters, shall we? So, $600 mil taken from foreigners, $200 mil from Canadians. In raw money the country is up $600 mil--$200 mil moves internally from consumers in general to farmers, $600 mil helps our balance of trade.
Now, what proportion of that is paid by the poor? And how much would any given poor person pay? Well, wheat's pretty staple, and everyone eats; some of the poorest eat too little, but not enough to have a major skewing impact, I wouldn't think. Assume everyone eats about the same amount. There's about 32 million people in Canada, so each one is paying about $6.25 a year extra. Or would be, if there were any indication that the price would actually be cheaper for them without the board. Personally, I don't have a problem with coming up with ways to compensate the poor for the hypothetical loss of a hypothetical extra $6.25 each that dumping the wheat board would get them if it actually meant price reductions, even though it wouldn't, because I think the poor should be getting a better deal in this country.

Of course all this ignores economic spinoff effects--if chunks of the farm sector die, there are presumably other jobs and economic activities that will stop happening.

This is exactly the wrong way to frame the debate. The relevant definition of 'consumers' is those who consume what wheat producers sell - that is to say, pretty much everybody. Some of those consumer produce wheat, and for them, the benefits of high wheat prices will outweigh the costs of higher food prices.

I think this is missing pogge's point, which is the shortsightedness of this framing. In the short run, we're all consumers, but in the long run, not only are we all dead, but we're also producers. Not of wheat, but we all have to make a living, and when some people find it harder to make a living, as PLG pointed out, it has spinoff effects. The question is, do cheaper food prices exceed, in this long run, the spinoff effects? At least technological displacement occasionally offers some of us something else to produce (eg, technology). The effects of abolishing the CWB don't even have that mitigating factor.

It appears that the Saskatchewan Party supports "market choice" as well:

AG05-10. Supporting Marketing Choice

Be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Party supports giving Saskatchewan farmers market choice by giving the right to choose selling grain independent of the Canadian Wheat Board or to continue selling through the Wheat Board voluntarily.

In other words, the Sask Party, along with the federal Conservatives, fails to understand that for the CWB to have any bargaining power, it must have its monopoly. Any policy that allows the few to benefit (most likely temporarily) while the many find themselves out of business because of a loss of bargaining power is simply unjust - and not particularly efficient either.

Josh - the Saskatchewan Party is a thoroughly unhinged bunch of right wingers that should not be considered in any way separate and distinct from the Harpies. Think Ross Thatcher and you pretty much have the mentality.

>Any policy that allows the few to benefit (most likely temporarily) while the many find themselves out of business because of a loss of bargaining power is simply unjust - and not particularly efficient either.

A free market isn't unjust. This "loss of bargaining power" you lament is obtained only at the cost of the bargaining power of those who would sell independently. You're merely playing favourites. Everyone who ever got squeezed out of business by competition has "unjustly" lost their bargaining power by your standards.

Yup!

Dual marketing- a second buyer- price he pays is a bit more than CWB, farmers switch to him, CWB has no wheat, goes out of business, price of wheat plummets, farmers scream for CWB to be reactivated, NAFTA says NO, end of farmers as owners, start of farming on prairies as sharecroppers and tenant farmers. Believe it.

Dual marketing- a second buyer- price he pays is a bit more than CWB, farmers switch to him, CWB has no wheat, goes out of business, price of wheat plummets, farmers scream for CWB to be reactivated, NAFTA says NO, end of farmers as owners, start of farming on prairies as sharecroppers and tenant farmers. Believe it.

A Nov. 11 report by Joe Friesen in the Globe and Mail says Inky Mark is breaking ranks on this. He says in Manitoba and probably Saskatchewan 2 out of 3 farmers support the Wheat Board, in Alberta maybe 1 out of 3. Mark bascially said Strahl is just following Harper's orders.