Conservative party to abolish Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, despite 60% of wheat farmers and 51% of
37 replies, posted
Source - [url=http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110912/CGY_wheat_board_110912/20110912/?hub=CalgaryHome]CTV Calgary[/url]
[release]Members of the Canadian Wheat Board have voted in favour of keeping the board's monopoly over western wheat and barley sales in Canada even though Ottawa wants to abolish it.
Just over 60 per cent of Prairie wheat growers and 51 percent of barley growers voted in favour of maintaining the monopoly.
Almost 40,000 farmers voted in the non-binding survey which is only about 55 percent of eligible wheat producers and 47 percent of barley growers.
The Wheat Board says the vote proves that farmers want the marketing structure to be retained.
"The results are very encouraging, 62 percent of wheat farmers say they favour the single desk and the advantages it brings. The barley vote was closer, 51 percent, but still a majority," said Allen Oberg, Canadian Wheat Board Chair.
Many farmers around Calgary say the results of the plebiscite are irrelevant and they expect the federal government to move ahead with a promise to scrap the wheat board. [/release]
[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Prairie+farmers+vote+keep+Wheat+Board+monopoly/5391048/story.html]Vancouver Sun[/url]
[release]"This government is out of touch with farmers," Oberg said Monday morning, after the results were released by accounting firm MNP LLP, which administered the vote. "For months now Minister Ritz has been telling us that the federal election gave him all the mandate he needs to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.
"But now, we know otherwise. There is no mandate from farmers to strip away their marketing power and hand it over to private companies."
MNP said 56 per cent of those eligible mailed in a ballot.[/release]
Whether or not 62 and 51 are big enough majorities to finalize anything remains to be seen, but perhaps the government should listen to what farmers want instead of telling them what they want.
If you're wondering what the Canadian Wheat Board is or how it works, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Wheat_Board]check out the wiki page on it[/url].
How come conservatives always seem to fuck shit up no matter what country or party they belong to
[QUOTE=demoguy08;32270588]How come conservatives always seem to fuck shit up no matter what country or party they belong to[/QUOTE]
Conservatives don't like the idea of collectives even when the members of said collective like the collective
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32270625]Conservatives don't like the idea of collectives even when the members of said collective like the collective[/QUOTE]
Because anything even slightly related to Socialism is seen as the Communist bastards getting into your mind.
This article actually surprised me because we've been hearing for years that the CWB is this evil government entity trampling all over the rights of the poor farmers who have to toil in the dust fields all day long
turns out it's pretty good
Almost 40,000 farmers voted in the non-binding survey [b]which is only about 55 percent of eligible wheat producers and 47 percent of barley growers.[/b]
Given we go on about majorities in government over numbers larger than this, I'm somewhat skeptical, but nevertheless, it's an acceptable sample and more then likely correct.
EDIT: And anyway, private companies. Vancouver Ferries anyone?
I learned that monopolies were horrible economically. What makes this one different?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32271334]I learned that monopolies were horrible economically. What makes this one different?[/QUOTE]
Public support
If farmers didn't want the CWB I wouldn't support it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32271543]Public support
If farmers didn't want the CWB I wouldn't support it[/QUOTE]
I'm sure many business owners would love to have a monopoly but that doesn't make it a good thing. DeBeers certainly loves their diamond monopoly, does that make it good?
So again, what is different about this monopoly that makes it better?
Wheat production is pretty fragile yet essential for the society. I don't know the rationale behind having a monopoly on this, but I can imagine it's for maintaining a stable production by freeing it from competition.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32271653]
So again, what is different about this monopoly that makes it better?[/QUOTE]
Public support
If farmers didn't want the CWB I wouldn't support it
Could have sworn I was asked this question already...
(farmers aren't the CEOs of the CWB if that's what you're thinking here)
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32272958]Public support
If farmers didn't want the CWB I wouldn't support it
Could have sworn I was asked this question already...
(farmers aren't the CEOs of the CWB if that's what you're thinking here)[/QUOTE]
So what if they support it? If they are exploiting the consumer with high prices of course they will support it.
Just because people are in support of exploiting other people doesn't make it right.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32275504]So what if they support it? If they are exploiting the consumer with high prices of course they will support it.
Just because people are in support of exploiting other people doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
You don't fight for what's right in the government, you fight for what the people want. No matter how short term it may be.
Good, monopolies are bad. Of course the farmers in the monopoly are voting against abolishing it. Anyone who has taken basic economics knows a monopoly allows you to decrease output and raise prices.
And besides, what the "people" want is really a way of saying what the rich people advertise, not what the average joe wants.
well no shit the monopoly doesn't want them to end the monopoly.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
in other news, the sky is blue and shit is brown. if your shit is blue you should call a doctor
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32271653]I'm sure many business owners would love to have a monopoly but that doesn't make it a good thing. DeBeers certainly loves their diamond monopoly, does that make it good?
So again, what is different about this monopoly that makes it better?[/QUOTE]
There's essentially two kinds of monopolies
a) For the public good - usually represent something that would be impossible under normal business - those are often created by law and most tend to be for public services.
b) Self arising from the market - those are bad as they tend to try and crush the market and then dictate their terms.
I assume this CWS exists to give the farmers of Canada a fighting chance and essentially blots out fairly big and cheap imports which would dump the wheat price down and end up killing the majority of farmers.
It either works by setting some sort of minimal price for the commodities or subvents it.
I don't think many people in the thread know how the CWB works (yawmwen and lankist...)
They're not a true monopoly (they're actually a monopsony)
They're the only [i]buyer[/i] of wheat and barley, there are many sellers
Their impact on the consumer is nil
It's worth noting that abolishing wheat boards was attempted before with disastrous results
[release]After the dissolution of the early board in 1920, farmers turned to the idea of farmer-owned cooperatives. Cooperative grain elevator operators already existed, like United Grain Growers, which had already been started in 1917. In 1923 and 1924 the wheat pools were created to buy Canadian wheat and resell it overseas. The Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Manitoba Pool Elevators quickly became giants in the industry and displaced the private traders. However they did not hedge against falling prices (instead relying on provincial government guarantees), and during the price collapse of 1929, they effectively went bankrupt. The majority of farmers did not want the private traders to return, and now it also seemed impossible for them to own their own marketing companies, so the idea of a government marketing board was revived. The Australian Wheat Board was created in 1931, which may have been a partial inspiration.[/release]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32275504]So what if they support it? If they are exploiting the consumer with high prices of course they will support it.
Just because people are in support of exploiting other people doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]It's the same as the government abolishing a co-op between farmers, who most likely do that just to make ends meet. I think it's total bullshit, because it's worked fine so far and the information available leads me to believe the CWB is/was a good thing.[QUOTE=Lankist;32276106]in other news, the sky is blue and shit is brown. if your shit is blue you should call a doctor[/QUOTE]My shit is sometimes a green color, but on very special days it's got corn. I like those days, it's like my innards just took a day off and let that corn go through, even though I starved a little bit, but that's alright because I don't mind starving if my insides need a bit of a break.
I'm nice like that.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32276320]I don't think many people in the thread know how the CWB works (yawmwen and lankist...)
They're not a true monopoly (they're actually a monopsony)
They're the only [i]buyer[/i] of wheat and barley, there are many sellers
Their impact on the consumer is nil
It's worth noting that abolishing wheat boards was attempted before with disastrous results
[release]After the dissolution of the early board in 1920, farmers turned to the idea of farmer-owned cooperatives. Cooperative grain elevator operators already existed, like United Grain Growers, which had already been started in 1917. In 1923 and 1924 the wheat pools were created to buy Canadian wheat and resell it overseas. The Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and Manitoba Pool Elevators quickly became giants in the industry and displaced the private traders. However they did not hedge against falling prices (instead relying on provincial government guarantees), and during the price collapse of 1929, they effectively went bankrupt. The majority of farmers did not want the private traders to return, and now it also seemed impossible for them to own their own marketing companies, so the idea of a government marketing board was revived. The Australian Wheat Board was created in 1931, which may have been a partial inspiration.[/release][/QUOTE]
there is probably a reason why 40% don't want it
i kinda want the reason before I pass judgement
[QUOTE=demoguy08;32270588]How come conservatives always seem to fuck shit up no matter what country or party they belong to[/QUOTE]
Because they all follow similar poltical beliefs that pretty much don't work in the modern world.
[QUOTE=Lankist;32276106]well no shit the monopoly doesn't want them to end the monopoly.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
in other news, the sky is blue and shit is brown. if your shit is blue you should call a doctor[/QUOTE]
My shit is blue and I feel fine.
The Conservatative Party at its best...
[editline]September 13th,2011[/editline]
Fixed.
So what exactly is the [I]reason[/I] they're abolishing it?
I'm pretty sure they didn't wake up one day and "Oh, lets get rid of this for the hell of it, it'll be funny!"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32276320]I don't think many people in the thread know how the CWB works (yawmwen and lankist...)
They're not a true monopoly (they're actually a monopsony)
They're the only [i]buyer[/i] of wheat and barley, there are many sellers
Their impact on the consumer is nil
It's worth noting that abolishing wheat boards was attempted before with disastrous results
[/QUOTE]
It allows farmers to get a higher price for their goods, which translates to a higher cost for consumers.
I'm not sure how applicable crises of decades past are applicable to today, in which the CWB is the only remaining (non-private) wheat board. It seems that other crops manage fine without a monopsony?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32275504]So what if they support it? If they are exploiting the consumer with high prices of course they will support it.
Just because people are in support of exploiting other people doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
They don't sell wheat and barely. They buy it. They are the only buyer. Monopoly is the wrong term. monopsony is the correct one.
Literally 10 seconds of actually looking at the thing you're arguing about would have saved you this.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32271653]I'm sure many business owners would love to have a monopoly but that doesn't make it a good thing. DeBeers certainly loves their diamond monopoly, does that make it good?
So again, what is different about this monopoly that makes it better?[/QUOTE]
DeBeers is a consortium, not a monopoly. A [i]mono[/i]poly implies that one company is in charge of it all, while DeBeers is consorting with other companies to control the diamond trade.
Cool so the conservatives are turning their voters against them.
Hopefully it doesn't go through but still rubs those pesky farmers the wrong way.
After reading this thread I feel like playing Monopoly
Should have said Natural Monopoly. That's the economic term for a monopoly that saves money, like a power company.
yeah I don't get what's so great about this
something tells me that if they had let the monopoly stand most of facepunch would still be outraged
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.