When you govern by ideology, success no longer becomes a factor in whether or not a publicly-funded program should continue. A classic example of this thinking is the Conservatives' attempt to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. Despite that fact that the CWB works well and is supported by the majority of Canadian wheat farmers, big agribusiness wants it gone, and the Cons are nothing if not faithful to their corporate pals.
On October 25 [2006], Inside US Trade, an American business magazine, published a report that could have serious implications for Canadian grain farmers. The Report of Technical Task Force on Implementing Marketing Choice for Wheat and Barley was first released not to farmers or the Canadian public, but to this US journal. According to Stewart Wells, President of the National Farmers Union (NFU), that reveals something about the report’s underlying aims. “That should provide some indication of whose interests are being served with this report,” he said. Essentially, the report argues for eliminating the present Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and replacing it with the so-called CWB II, a move that many argue will threaten the viability of small wheat farmers in Canada and further increase the profitability of Big Agribusiness.
Profits rule all, and any public spending that does not increase corporate profits seems to be on the chopping block. The latest victim of this type of thinking is a highly successful program to combat youth homelessness that has been praised by the United Nations as one of the best programs of its type in the world.
Counsellors with a Toronto project that helps homeless youth are to receive layoff notices today, making them the latest casualties of federal foot-dragging over renewal of an award-winning program that supports scores of similar projects across the country.Youthlink, a community-based group that offers training and other support for young people on the street, will advise about a half-dozen staff members that their jobs will end shortly.
"I am fearful that the city will look very different," said program supervisor Carolann Barr, who confirmed the cuts at the one-of-a-kind project, which offers intensive counselling and training to help 16- to 24-year-olds off the street. "Without these kinds of supports, they will fall through the cracks."
The layoffs at Youthlink and similar agencies are tied to the uncertain fate of the seven-year-old Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), a federal program recognized by the United Nations in 2002 as an example of "best practice" for improving urban life.
Staff cuts have been announced or are pending at other agencies.
Several counsellors with a project that helps the homeless retrieve identity documents (giving them access to housing and health services) already know they will lose their jobs by February.
Julia Chao, executive director of the Partners for Access and Identification, said her project receives about $500,000 a year from the federal program, but is no longer accepting new clients given the funding uncertainty.
At the Fred Victor Centre, executive director Mark Aston said layoffs are coming "soon" for three programs that receive about $375,000 from the federal homelessness program. Mr. Aston said the successes of the programs are highly visible, with about 25 per cent of formerly homeless individuals going on to jobs or returning to school.
Mayors, advocates for homeless people and others across the country have been pressing the federal government to confirm its commitment to SCPI before it expires in March. Without a continuation of federal funding, homeless advocates predict a rise in visible homelessness in Canada's cities.
"People will see more homeless on the street," predicted Michael Shapcott, a senior public-policy analyst with the Wellesley Institute think tank in Toronto. "The situation will be that much more visible and the conditions that much more desperate."
Toronto appears to be the first city where formal layoffs have been issued, but officials in London, Calgary and Vancouver are warning that programs that took years to develop are on the edge of a precipice.
"It is at risk of happening in Vancouver," said Jill Davidson, senior housing planner for the city. "A number of really good projects will be cancelled and services [to the homeless] will stop."
Yesterday, an aide to federal Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said the government "will be making investments in homelessness after March."
"We are simply looking at our options before deciding how to proceed," press secretary Colleen Cameron added, without saying when the government will announce its decision.
Decisions made in March will be meaningless of course. The programs will be shut down by then, infrastructure will be lost, experienced staff members will move on to other jobs, and homeless people will be deprived of a vital service that actually made a positive difference.
Small town museums, court services for the non-wealthy, women, literacy programs, farmers and now the homeless have all been the targets of Conservative cuts. All of the targetted programs have a track record of success, but success does not seem to be enough to save any program from the slash-happy gang in the Conservative caucus. We become a lesser nation with every day we live under Stephen Harper's government.
Actually, I'd argue that success may well be a key criterion for targetting programs to cut. Ineffectual programs aren't really a threat to the Conservative agenda. Effective programs do things Conservatives don't like.
--They make it looks as if government is working; this is a threat to people buying the Con ideology that government is bad.
--They may effectively redistribute wealth. Conservatives don't like that.
--They may reduce the immiseration of the poor, making the threat of unemployment less stringent; this makes it harder to keep wages down, bust unions etc. Note that this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's official central bank economic policy to keep inflation low by "disciplining" the work force with a certain level of unemployment, by strangling overly strong economic growth with high interest rates. This "disciplining" is presumably more difficult if unemployment is a less extreme threat.
--They may create better alternatives to private sector approaches to situations; this may threaten profits.
So it's not surprising that Cons are cutting successful programs rather than unsuccessful ones.
This in turn would mean that it's even more important not to vote for ideologically right wing parties like the Conservatives to run a government--not only are they against government and therefore probably not the people you want running one, they actually have an interest in not just shrinking, but sabotaging government.
It's like putting the Dirty Book Burning Movement in charge of the historic erotica collection. Sure, there may be checks and balances stopping them from just burning down the building. But you can bet that there will be disappearances, and they will be disproportionately from anything interesting and provocative that actually made the collection worth having. Of course, nobody would be stupid enough to do that--why do we vote for Conservatives?
Actually, PLG, you probably have the right of it. Since the point is to show that government programs don't work, the need to undermine whatever works is paramount. Look at the hash job various governments have made of health care over the past 20 years.
And you're right - it comes down to a simple question: why do we put our government in the hands of poeple who hate government?
I'd also agree that PLG has hit this one right on the head of the nail. At the heart of the CPC ideology is the premise that government is always the problem and never the solution, so when there are programs which refute this premise they must be sabotaged/destroyed so as to reduce the amount of empirical evidence available to disprove that premise of government never helping. It was one of my secondary concerns about a Harper/CPC government being elected, my primary one being of course the devolution of powers agenda I have spoken of in the past. This is a government that claims it slashed programs because they weren't getting the required efficiency for the tax dollars spent, yet we have to date not only not seen the studies/evaluations done to make this determination we haven’t even seen any signs that such an evaluation has ever taken place at all!
No, this is a government that believes its ideology is correct and therefore refuses to accept any contradicting information. Indeed, since it is so convinced of its inherent correctness it sees no need to do any studies/evaluations as to whether their ideological program cuts will do any harm nor whether their ideological replacements will do any good. After all, they *know* they are correct and therefore what they do is automatically going to be the best thing. It is this kind of ideological certitude which left most Canadians uncomfortable with the idea of a federal NDP government throughout its history as a federal party and it should have been the same for the CPC given their own ideological rigidity. Unfortunately the last election campaign was a brilliant stealth campaign by Harper's CPC combined with fatigue with a governing party in power 13 years hounded by scandals that also ran what was one of if not the worst federal election campaigns I have seen in my life. Yet it is also obvious that a certain amount of that ideological distrust remained in the voting public given the weak minority results for the CPC and the surprisingly strong result for the Liberals. Given the perfect storm against the Liberals and working for the CPC by rights it should have gotten a majority or at the very least a much stronger minority than it did. All I can say to that is thank God for the inherent Canadian suspicion of any ideologically driven party be they from the left or right.
Some of them may not actually believe their ideology is correct. Its being correct isn't really the point--the point is, feeding it to the Canadian public gets you friends in wealthy places, which may mean campaign contributions now or lots of lucrative-for-no-work corporate directorships later or thousands-per-appearance speaking engagements or whatever. The ones who truly believe are about as dangerous as the ones who just know it butters their bread to ruin the country for the rest of us.
>why do we put our government in the hands of poeple who hate government?
Would you settle for a compromise in which the people who like government get to run the government, and the people who hate government are beyond the reach of that government? Probably not. So we end up with a constant struggle between people who want more autonomy and people who want more security.
Which would be fine if the people (read corporations, usually) who "want more autonomy" were willing to push for a smaller but more efficient government. Instead they tend to sabotage government, killing the most efficient parts in an effort to render theirs the only viable point of view. That's *not* fine.
Every time people who want smaller, more efficient government are asked to provide a list of suggestions, the response to every suggestion is "Oh, we can't do without that." Apparently government is already as small and efficient as it can ever possibly be.
PLG, this bit was right on: "...the point is, feeding it to the Canadian public gets you friends in wealthy places"
I always wondered why folks never noticed one great thing about Paul Martin was that he was too rich to need friends in wealthy places -- he already had all that stuff.
The Steve Harpers and Gordon Campbells, on the other hand, have no prospects post-public service other than those lucrative corporate directorships, speaking engagements, and perhaps a puff posting at a propaganda mill, oops, think tank. (Mike Harris, for example, is a fellow at the Fraser Institute.)
So there really is no way, given those motivations, that they could be expected to govern for the good of the whole commons.
--------------------
IrC -- your idea that people who hate government should be beyond reach of it is an excellent one. I think Antarctica would be far enough, eh?
Sure, but the government has to pay its own costs to fly there and back for each sitting of Parliament.
>I always wondered why folks never noticed one great thing about Paul Martin was that he was too rich to need friends in wealthy places -- he already had all that stuff.
>The Steve Harpers and Gordon Campbells, on the other hand,
It's pretty funny that you overlook exactly _how_ Paul Martin became rich and who his friends _already were_, and then brazenly go on to tell us what's in the minds of Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell.
Here's a suggestion to reduce government spending, cut the subsidies to the already insanely profitable oit and gas industry? wouldn't that save more money and have less negative impact on this country? How come programs like that are never on the conservative chopping block? Harper is in the back pocket of "big ass" petroleum industries.
Here is an interesting side light - I wish I could go back far enough in the Star's archives to get the actual quote .....
"At the Fred Victor Centre, executive director Mark Aston said layoffs are coming"
Once Ricky Williams, 'marquis' player for the Argos, once and soon to be *Star* for Miami Dolphins - disappeared from a practice. No one knew where to find him for that whole day. It turns out he was at Fred Victor, working as a volunteer, (with no press coverage) in their kitchen.
croghan27
If the CWB is so wonderful and beneficial to farmers, why not bring in all the farmers east of the Manitoba/Ontario border? And force them to sell to the CWB only, at CWB prices.
Or, put differently, if CWB is doing such a great idea, why not let poor misguided western farmers who think they can get better prices away from CWB, to do so? Surely it's so apparent that the CWB is the best thing for western farmers that these poor misguided fools will come back to the CWB with their tails between their legs?
Why does the CWB exist, anyway, and how is it's mission statement validated independently and with competitive pricing to ensure the CWB is not just a place for Liberal faithful? Which it is.
What nonsense, Erik! The CWB is run by farmers, who are not noticeably Liberal; however many who voted Conservative last time will not next time because of the dictatorial stupidity of Strahl and Harper. And the majority of farmers support the Wheat Board, which is why Strahl has to be so dishonest about what he is trying to do.
They just elected five people to the board, four of whom support the single desk system. This gets good prices for all the farmers. Without it a small minority would temporarily get higher prices on their own, but most farmers would lose.
And I have heard that eastern Canadian farmers are moving toward a single desk system.
And the Conservatives probably want to destroy the CWB in order to suck up to the Americans who don't like having to compete with Canadian farmers. Destroying the CWB would probably end up putting many Canadian farmers out of business, as well as all sorts of grain-based businesses in Winnipeg; big job loss.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/10/19/cwb-speech.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/12/14/cwb-rally.html
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061214/n121439A.html
If the CWB is so wonderful and beneficial to farmers, why not bring in all the farmers east of the Manitoba/Ontario border? And force them to sell to the CWB only, at CWB prices.
Did you miss that we're talking about the Canadian Wheat Board? How much wheat is grown in Ontario?
Yo PLG:
"It's like putting the Dirty Book Burning Movement in charge of the historic erotica collection"
You can't post enough to satisfy me ... thank you.
I don't really care one way or the other about the Canadian Wheat Board. Personally, I think farmers should be free to negotiate the best deal they think they can get. But before one blames the CWB on Ottawa or Easterners, I could not help but notice that there have been a number of elections to the CWB in the past, and candidates that have advocated its dismantlement have not fared well.
It would seem that the CWB has the support of most Western farmers. If you think the CWB should be dismantled, perhaps you should be talking to them. Harper's practice of damaging programs by dithering on them is just as dishonest as Paul Martin's practice of promising a number of items and then dithering on delivery.
Josh Gould: Although "wheat" appears in its name, the agency handles barley, feed grains, etc. In fact, looking at its vision/mission statement, they are quite clear on the word "grains" as the all-encompassing one, wheat being only one of the grain varieties they handle. And, yes, there's some of that frown east of the Manitoba border too. Anyway, the question was why shouldn't the eastern grain farmers be forced (like their western counterparts) to sell all their grains to the CWB, or be sent to jail?
Holly Stick: You too studiously avoided answering the tow principal questions posed in the first two paragraphs of my original post. Care to do so now? Perhaps you and Josh Gould could get together to formulate a group answer?
1. Why not extend mandatory program to whole nation (big N).
2. Why not let farmers opt out, if CWB program is so obviously beneficial?
Looking forward to your answers.
I forgot to add that the opening paragraph of Tim's post/article above mistates, or sets the fundamental question inaccurately.
"When you govern by ideology, success no longer becomes a factor in whether or not a publicly-funded program should continue."
This isn't the issue al all, as Tim knows full well. But he has to sell newspapers, and screaming lead paras sell newspapers ... or advance party positions. Or wheat board ones.
I can only assume that Time has overlooked possible ideologies of freedom of choice, economic returns, making clear who the boss (farmer) is and who the replaceable service provider (CWB) is, and blindly and unquestioningly following a mendacious Wheat Board's "right of monopoly"? I'm glad that Tim has taken the time to straighten us all out.
Gee, I thought these were permissible thoughts in our nanny state but, thanks to Time, I've had my knowledge and opinion base adjusted. Also my definition of democracy. Of course, the irony of Tim being permitted to write such a statement (of obvious fact, albeit just his slant of the issue) becomes a delicious irony too.
Well, I feel better now. Bye.
Killing SCPI will be disastrous, to say the least. I've been working on homelessness issues for years, and SCPI is about all that's keeping what few programs we do have afloat.
Do the Conservatives actually think that homelessness isn't a problem? Tell that to the people who broke into my house on Monday.
1. Why not extend mandatory program to whole nation (big N).
Fact 1: The Prairies produces over 95 percent of Canada's wheat and barley (read: grain).
Fact 2: Other provinces have similar marketing schemes. Ontario's grain farmers (contributing about 4 percent of national output) are under the auspices of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board.
2. Why not let farmers opt out, if CWB program is so obviously beneficial?
There's a simple reason - "opting out" implies that certain farmers should be able to make gains potentially at the expense of others. Whether the CWB remains a single-desk marketing board is a decision for all farmers to make in concert. It is not a decision to be made by a small minority of farmers nor, I should add, is it a decision to be made by the federal government. Why are they not allowing a referendum for barley and wheat? Do you oppose letting Prairie farmers vote?
There is, of course, no foregone conclusion to such a vote. In 2003, Ontario producers voted to permit dual marketing of wheat in the province (see here), moving away the single-desk model. Note that they voted to do this - why would you not accord the same rights to Prairie farmers, Erik?
Arborman: if the SCPI $20 mil (one-eighth of the $160 mil I mentioned above) is "all that's keeping what few programs we do have afloat", then Torontonians have a really big beef with Miller (blatently NDP) and McGuinty (Liberal). Or am I the only one who sees it this way, from your comment?
Secondly, I'm very sorry for the break-in you experience but it's not clear to me whether these folks thought your home was for them (real homeless people), or just the run-of-the-mill break-in artists that did my house on Pape Ave a few years ago ... you know the type .... bored students, druggies (with homes), just straight-out crooks, you name it. Did the perps tell you they were homeless? Or were they "homely", and just after your money and property, which is the reason in 99.9999999% of thefts and break-ins?
Thirdly, I don't think that the Conservatives believe homelessness isn't a problem. But I suspect that they (and I) feel that Toronto's homeless situation is Toronto's to solve. In the same way that they believe that a halfway house for repentent smokers in Left Elbow, Sask is not a federal responsibility either, but a matter for the town (or, at widest, the province) to be held wholly accountable for in terms of responsibility and funding.
I really, really hope that Harper and company are successful in sorting out roles, responsibilities and funding per the BNA/Constitution. Because it's really beginning to bug me that everyone thinks it's the Feds', Province's, City's, etc. problem, and no one is being held accountable for performance. Martin and the Liberals really liked confusion. They could announce (or, more usually, re-announce the same funds over and over - witness the Toronto waterfront) funds for this or that program. The fact that the problem doesn't get solved apparently doesn't occur to anyone. It made the big media splash, end of need. And it's also why they are aghast that Harper & Co want to fix this problem and (fingers crossed) get it enshrined in the constitution.
To me, the Homeless problem is Miller's problem (e.g., for Toronto), and he alone should be held accountable. If he doesn't have enough money to solve/address the problem, let him raise taxes/mill rate. Harper's job is to sort out this insanity, this lack of responsibility, and get the federal money into provincial hands, and the feds out of the equation. If McGuinty doesn't want to pass the money along to Miller, that's for them to deal with.
Right now Miller blames McGuinty and Harper. McGuinty blames Harper, and the NDP at all levels blames everyone but themselves. Meanwhile, much of the money being spent now isn't being used wisely or effectively, and Miller has to be held wholly accountable for that. Not McGuinty, not Harper, not "Them".
Miller must be laughing in his union premises while everyone gets their knickers in a twist in the middle of a forest. And no one has figured out that his renewed begging (only 5 seconds after re-election, what nerve) for more provincial or federal money, for anything, just send more money, comes from only one pocket ... Joe/Jane Taxpayer.
What a coward ... he's able to suck on one hand and say a funding crisis is upon Homeless Programs, and to blow with his begging that anyone other than his constituents (so it seems, but false) must ante up the money.
And I hear that there's actually intelligent people and blog readers that get taken in by this scam, year in and year out?
Josh: "I" don't advocate no vote. Just a fair vote. Real live producers and customers of the board, not someone who's sold the farm or not in wheat, etc., anymore. Without the board stacking the deck advertising-wise.
I assume you are aware that Ritter sucks and blows at the same time, and under oath? And Canadians can trust him to run a fair, balanced and board-neutral vote? I think not.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005152.html
So, I have never said there shouldn't be a vote. But it should be a fair vote.
That doesn't make sense, unfortunately, since Toronto's boundaries do not make political, social or economic sense. Many of Toronto's current homeless weren't born in the city; they came here looking for jobs. Indeed, the balkanized nature of the Greater Toronto Area has meant that a number of the suburban municipalities surrounding Toronto can "export" their homeless problem to the city, saving funds on their own tax base while shafting you.
Given the way the British North America act and the Constitution is structured, municipal affairs is a provincial responsibility -- not a municipal one. Yeah, I'm scratching my head over that one as well. But Toronto does not have the power to deal with its challenges in the near future -- from transportation to housing and beyond. The province has that power, and responsibility should fall upon McGuinty to either exercise that power, or to work out some sort of arrangement that gives the Greater Toronto Area the powers of a province.
Even possibly trying to make the Greater Toronto Area *into* a province, which I talked about here.
>There's a simple reason - "opting out" implies that certain farmers should be able to make gains potentially at the expense of others.
Yeah. That's the whole concept of a free market. Every time market share shifts in any particular economic sector, someone is making gains at the expense (not potentially) of others.
>Whether the CWB remains a single-desk marketing board is a decision for all farmers to make in concert.
I just love the whole regulatory capture approach to resolving a basic freedom. Hey, we imposed a monopsony and a bunch of rules on you guys; now those of you who want out are stuck in here playing by those rules with the guys who want to keep it. It's tyranny of a majority; don't sugarcoat it.
"Yeah. That's the whole concept of a free market. Every time market share shifts in any particular economic sector, someone is making gains at the expense (not potentially) of others."
So then Canadian farmers would be competing with American farmers for market share; and since the American farmers are subsidized more by their government, Canadian farmers would lose.
Surely no patriotic Canadian would support the destruction of our agricultural industry!
It doesn't have to be either-or. The CWB (or some other marketing agency derived from it) can remain for those 4 out of 5 (or however many it happens to be) farmers who believe they have a competitive advantage by remaining with the Board. Nothing would change for them with respect to US or world markets. Farmers who think they can do better without the Board would be free to try. Those who object to being constrained by the Board presumably already have some idea how they would remain competitive in open markets.
Yes it does. The reasons have been explained so many times.
I have a few comments on this statement with regards to the CWB,"big agribusiness wants it gone, and the Cons are nothing if not faithful to their corporate pals." as well as the rest of it. I am so tired of lazy, envious socialists referring to corporations as evil which is how I interpret this sentance. Anyway, on with the issue. Big grain companies in Canada, make a lot of money handling CWB grains. They don't have to market it, manage commodity and currency risk and are able to charge a large handling fee with no risk. The margins are comparable to how the many grain companies, both small in large in the United States have to make through merchandising such as basis trading using the buy basis, sell basis and spreads with much more risk. The big grain companies want status quo so they don't have to hire more people to market this grain and make the same amount of money. However, companies such as Agricore United have taken an anti-socialist stance on the CWB stating that they can better serve their farmers and customers in a free market like every other grain commodity other than certain wheat and barley markets.
Anyone who has studied Micro-economics knows that agricultural markets such as grain markets are one of the closest things to perfect competition. Each grain commodity is similar to any other and therefore the buyer doesn't care who produces it as long as the price is the same. Perfect competition requires that the buyer and the seller be so small compared to the entire market as to be unable to influence price. This wouldn't be totally met in agriculture because there are more seller than there are buyers (especially in Canada for reasons explained later) but it is closer than most however, the futures markets and all of its players don’t allow people to corner markets. All resources are completely mobile, all producers and users must be able to enter and leave the market at their own will which in a free grain market unlike Canada for wheat and barley can be done. Perfect competition requires that consumers, firms, and resource owners have perfect knowledge of the relevant economic and technological data. This part is there because we have a futures market that publically shows the price of grain at any time for many different delivery periods. There are many different people using the futures markets from farmers, speculators, users, merchandisers etc. all simultaneously buying and selling at the same time and thus discovering price. The markets are so big that no "multinational corporation" can corner the market. If the cash price is low relative to the futures price, producers can allow their short futures position to expire and make delivery and thus arbitrage the price relationship. The result of an industry that is this close to perfect competition is that the resources are allocated in the most efficient manner. Using this theory, if companies can enter and exit the industry freely, increased competition will result to compete with “the large multi-national corporations.”
The Canadian Wheat Board has indirectly destroyed the domestic usage of milling wheat and malting/export barley. The simple reason is that it doesn’t allow the freedom to procure grain from the least expensive source. Companies are unable to manage their own risk by buying direct from the market from the cheapest and most efficient source, instead they have to buy it back from a collectivized bureaucracy that is supposedly farmer owned and controlled. A good example of the effects is the Alberta Government’s study www.choicematters.gov.ab.ca/files/pdf/A%20Case%20Study%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Oat%20Market.pdf
Another example of how the Canadian Wheat Board is a farce is the fact that because a producer cannot sell all of their grain at one time. In a grain market that is free from political control such as the United States, grain can be sold and bought in any quantity for any delivery period and as a result, much less on farm storage. Since the Canadian Wheat Board has their “contract calls” which allows for a percentage of grain produced to be delivered to a primary elevator. This forces producers to invest in expensive on farm storage instead of forward marketing their grain at profitable cash prices for harvest delivery.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a bureaucracy and has many more people employed than necessary. They claim that they pay the farmers their sales prices minus an administration cost. Monopolies, sorry, “single desk” sellers of grain have no competition and as a result don’t need to run their day to day operations in an efficient manner. Farmers are being charged an administration cost that is likely a lot higher than one charged in a market where competition for the grain is in place.
Since the Wheat Board’s the main pricing option is a pooled price system, the producer is not able to use proven marketing methods of selling grain at historically high levels either to the many various buyers competing for the grain, or by selling futures to protect from prices going down. The wheat prices on the day this was written are as high in the nearby futures months as they are in the harvest delivery for the next several years. Farmers could take advantage of these situations by selling ahead a large part of their expected production at numbers that represent the upper level of the market like today. This cannot be done in with the CWB controlling a farmer’s marketing. Producers and grain companies are unable to manage their own risk and cannot use the use an array of different futures and options strategies.
Due to the lack of competition, the CWB is less likely to be innovative in all of its duties than the private industry including the selling price for the grain because there is no incentive for them to do so. They won’t loose any market share if they are not efficient. Also, they are not accountable under the Access to Information Act, no one is able to verify that they are not selling the grain at below the market.
There are many, many reasons why socialist central planning agencies like the CWB cause harm to the Canadian Agriculture economy and I could go on for a long time on this subject but time is a factor. People need to let go of the idealistic and populist theory as well as that warm fuzzy feeling they get when some centrally planned government agency that is supposedly helping the people and not making a profit instead of legitimate companies competing in a market is the best way that things should be marketing Canadian grain. If it is such a good way, why don’t we let the government market everything on our behalf, and why not take ownership of the farms while they are at it and do some real wealth re-distribution. Nowhere are there any farmers moving toward a “central desk” selling preference contrary to what was said earlier. The conservatives were very clear in their election promises and the dismantling of the “Farmer’s Democratic Republic of Wheat and Barley Trading.” Governments should be supporting competition such as allowing any railway company to operate on the Canadian rail lines allowing more competitive rail rates and thus benefiting producers. Maybe they should be subsidizing the prices when they get below a certain level rather than control the marketing of grain like the US does (although this goes against the free market and perfect competition theory), or better yet, educate farmers to market their grain better rather than doing it for them. Farmer in my area won’t have anything to do with the CWB including voting on the issues because they have either stopped growing the grain altogether or don’t want to have all of their grain controlled by a socialist grain monopoly. We need to end the shackles of socialism and end this archaic, obsolete and communistic grain trading monopoly. Oh well, I suppose the issue will resolve itself, the pro-CWB farmers will either retire or be too old leaving the business or going broke leaving the marketing educated and conscious farmers left and thus the support for the CWB will dwindle to radical bowels of left-wing politics.
This article & resulting dialogue are a good example of why I voted pogge for best blog.
>Yes it does. The reasons have been explained so many times.
No, they haven't. What has happened is that people attached to the status quo have made claims about what they think will happen if the CWB doesn't have a lock on all the selling and buying it currently does. That's speculation.
Oddly enough, that's true of practically any public policy choice.
"Oh well, I suppose the issue will resolve itself, the pro-CWB farmers will either retire or be too old leaving the business or going broke leaving the marketing educated and conscious farmers left and thus the support for the CWB will dwindle to radical bowels of left-wing politics."
Here, "educated and conscious farmers" mean multinational agribusiness.
>Oddly enough, that's true of practically any public policy choice.
Sure. What's equally odd is how certain everything becomes after the socialist preference is implemented.
Yes, but some speculations are more well-founded than others.
"Here, "educated and conscious farmers" mean multinational agribusiness."
Again, there you go with the "multi-national agribusiness" again. Why don't you use the great freedom we have in this country and go into business in competition with the "multi-national corporations" instead of complaining about them and conserving the status quo that seriously harms us farmers? Probably, you are the type of person, typical of the left wing political group, envious of everyone else's success and thus try to bring down those who have an advantage over others.
"Again, there you go with the "multi-national agribusiness" again. Why don't you use the great freedom we have in this country and go into business in competition with the "multi-national corporations" instead of complaining about them and conserving the status quo that seriously harms us farmers?"
It turns out that, in the Wheat Board elections, the "us farmers" disagree with you. Or so I heard. But that's neither here nor there.
Dude, the game is rigged. Your ability to compete with the "multi-national corporation" requires you to become as them. The likelihood of everyone getting to be as though they were a multinational corporation is minimal. In the meantime---you have massive displacement and greater social stratification, greater wealth concentation, and thereafter: greater oppression.
My own future is far more sound than the future of a many existing farmers without the Wheat Board. I've been on the gravy train of people in whose favour the game is rigged and likely will be so again. You, on the other hand, assuming you really are a young, entrepreneurial farmer, are to be left flapping in the wind.