Wheat board silenced

[Debra]

The Conservative government has banned the Canadian Wheat Board from advocating its continued existence as the monopoly seller of Western Canadian wheat and barley, adding fuel to a growing political fire.

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001302.shtml#comments

[skdadl]

So the CWB is now not allowed to do any informed advocacy.

Gosh. Where have we heard that before recently?  *fume*

[Herr Magoo]

Does advocating for a monopoly in the market count as "informed advocacy"?  How?

I thought monopoly was a bad thing.  It sure seems to be if the topic is the evil Micro$oft.   :?:

Well, it's all about context.

In some cases, there's a social benefit to having a regulated monopoly.

Microsoft is not a regulated monopoly.  It's a private fiefdom of great power and is excessively wasteful.

The CWB is an excellent insurance program and only a tiny minority of, well, morons, have a problem with it.

[Herr Magoo]

Microsoft is not a regulated monopoly.

Heck, with Apple and Linux doing just fine, thanks, I'd argue they're not much of a monopoly at all.  If their goal was "Be a Monopoly", I'd tell them they're failing.  :)

he CWB is an excellent insurance program

It couldn't operate as an insurance program for those who want to opt in?  
Why can't a farmer who grows wheat sell that wheat however he or she wishes, while still allowing the CWB to operate for those farmers who want to sell that way?

[skdadl]

Huh? You are comparing a private corporation to something that is, if not quite its opposite (a co-op), some distance towards it?

The Wheat Board was until recently a Crown corporation -- its governance structure was modified to make it even closer to a co-op model (10 of 15 board members are elected by the farmer-members), although it remains responsible to the government (ie: the people of Canada, all the people of Canada).

There are fairly strict rules and principles governing the way the (partisan) government of the day may deal with Crown bodies, as, indeed, with ministries. The boards and staffs of the former or the civil servants in the latter are there specifically to inform and advise the (partisan) government of the day, presumably on behalf of the best interests of all Canadians. "Inform and advise" means research and advocate.

I'm not an expert on the politics of the CWB, but I understand that their membership, like the softwood-lumber producers, have their differences but are by no means behind this kind of coup from Ottawa. There are elections going on right now, I believe.

I haven't worked with researchers in SWC or the CWB, but I have worked with the research dep'ts of other ministries -- Immigration, eg -- which do work very like what StatsCan does, only more dedicated by field. I know that the neocons like to sneer at that kind of work, but in my experience it is exceptionally valuable and of exceptionally high quality.

[Debra]

this is partisan but whatever http://ndpcaucus.sk.ca/headline-361.html

and from the NDP site

“Stephen Harper as past President of the National Citizens Coalition spoke against the use of gag laws. He called them unconstitutional. He was right," said the NDP Agriculture critic. “It is inconceivable that democracy can in any way be served by such a blatant abuse of ministerial power.”

Atamanenko accused the Prime Minister of a blatant flip-flop on the issue of gag orders.

“A lot of farmers heard Mr. Harper speak out against gag orders. Those of you who have heard him speak regarding this issue should be wondering why he now condones it as an acceptable tool to promote his government’s hidden agenda,” said Atamanenko. “By imposing these types of restrictions it makes you wonder what the government’s real agenda is and why they so desperately need to hog-tie the Wheat Board in such a way”

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4439

[skdadl]

Aha -- they're awake! Well, the NDP have roots, of course. Nice to see them remember.

Thanks, Debra. That is most useful.

[Herr Magoo]

You are comparing a private corporation to something that is, if not quite its opposite (a co-op), some distance towards it?

If I claimed they were somehow exactly the same, I could understand the indignance, but honestly, it seems to me perfectly valid to compare any two things in the world, if I want to.  I could compare the Wheat Board to a pencil, and the worst that could come of it would be the discovery that they're not that much alike.

When I hear "Monopoly", besides thinking of the board game, I think "no choice".  It would appear you're correct, in a sense, that the two are dissimilar, but in fact it would be because you DO have options to Microsoft.

And for what it's worth, the CWB is actually a monopsony — only one buyer — rather than a monopoly.  But still... no choice, no other options.

I just wonder why it's necessary for the CWB to be mandatory.  If it's a co-op, why can it not be "opt-in" for those who wish to be part of the co-op, and opt out for those who don't?  Can anyone answer this?

[pogge]

I just wonder why it's necessary for the CWB to be mandatory.

You may have a valid point or it may be that the CWB could explain that. The point here is that suddenly they're not allowed to. The first thing we need to know is why the Harper government is putting a muzzle on the CWB -- and coincidentally refusing to hold a plebiscite so we can see what the real opinions of farmers are -- as they consider their policy changes.

Edited 'cos I broke the quote thingie.

[brebis noire]

If I am extrapolating correctly, the CWB also functions to maintain some kind of a coherence in terms of offer. This is largely because agriculture, unlike most other sectors, cannot always follow the economic rules of supply and demand. You have good years, you have crappy years, you have floods, droughts, disease, etc....So it's there to make sure that prices are maintained in such a way that farmers can continue to exist and so that we can continue to eat bread even though the crops might have failed in one place or another last year.  

I think that the CWB has probably abused its power in the past, yes. But as a principle, it's something that needs to continue to exist, for the good of everybody.

It's the same thing for milk. Americans hate our quota system (you have to purchase the right to produce milk, on a per-unit basis) because it's a way of making sure that the offer matches demand, even though they frame it as price-fixin. I see it as a way of trying to avoid craziness in dairy production such as happens down south. Agriculture is fucked up in the US, just like it was in the Soviet Union (though not exactly the same way) and it looks like we're following them down that road to hell.

[Mandos]

Sheesh, Magoo.  The point is that the little farmers would be slowly eaten alive.  And by slowly, I mean somewhat faster than what they already are.  Can't allow the minority to muddy the waters.  It'll turn into full-scale divide and conquer.

[Herr Magoo]

The point is that the little farmers would be slowly eaten alive.

So it's "for their own good"?

I'm still not seeing the harm in allowing them to choose.  If it would mean financial ruin for them then we'd assume they wouldn't choose that.  Not much need to criminalize selling wheat to a buyer other than the CWB if what you say is correct.

[Mandos]

It's for the good of the majority who, as I understand it, want it.  It's akin to pollution control laws.

[Herr Magoo]

It's for the good of the majority

Okay.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, but how is it necessary for the good of this majority that everyone participate, under penalty of law?

Or, put another way, what would happen to the majority if Farmer Bob were to sell his wheat to someone else?