Protectionist: WTO hands down decision three on U.S. COOL legislation

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

Wow, retaliatory tariffs on wine and mattresses,I'm sure the US are shaking in their boots.

Canada has a huge import tariff (about 200%) on dairy products from the U.S., imagine if the U.S. put a similar tariff on pork and beef imports to their country. Be careful, is Canada entirely up front with the dairy industry? A lot at stake for Canadian beef and pork farmers.

THE U.S. JUST GOT IT'S FIRST BIG LESSON ON TRYING TO USE TRADE AGREEMENTS TO BLOCK OTHER COUNTRIES ACCESS ! THEY THOUGH THEY COULD CREATE A LEGAL NON TARRIFF BARRIER AND IT BACK FIRED !! THIS HOW EVERY HAS COST THE CANADIAN TAX PAYER A LOT OF MONEY ,BUT MONEY WELL SPENT TO DEFEND OUR EXPORTING AG. INDUSTIES !! WELL DONE BY ALL PARTIES INVOLVED TO DEFEND WHAT OUR TRADE NEGOTIATORS PUT IN THE WTO AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE !! THIS PROVES THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO TRADE AND ALLOW IMPORTS IN TO OUR COUNTRIES THE OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TO PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULE !! GOOD JOB CANADA !! THE EXPORTING AGRICULTURE PRODUCERS OWE A LOT OF THANKS TO THE LAWYERS AND PEOPLE THAT WORKED HARD ON THERE BEHALF !! LIKELY THE U.S.A. WILL APPEAL THE DECISION ,BUT IT IS HARDER TO WIN ON A APPEAL OF A VERY SOLID CASE !! THIS SHOULD SET THE GROUNDS FOR OTHER CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE IF NEED BE !! BILL DENBY IMPORTER /EXPORTER

But Bill ... We still have SM here that hurts us !

THE SUPPLYMANAGED PRODUCERS DO HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS COMING EXCEPT FOR CHICKEN AND TURKEY !THE MILK SIDE IS FULLY EXPOSED TO THE U.S.A ,I PROVED THAT WHEN I IMPORTED EVERY PRODUCT I WANTED TO ,WITH NO TARRIFF APPIED ,DUTY FREE ! RIGHT NOW IF ANY RETAILER WANTED TO SOURCE ALL THERE FLUID MILK NEEDS FROM THE U.S. THEY COULD BASED ON A NUMBER OF THINGS ,WE HAVE A CUSTOMS RULING IN RIGHT NOW AT REVENUE AND CUSTOMS ON SOME INTERESTING PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER DAIRY TARRIFFS INSTEAD THEY WILL COME IN DUTY FREE UNDER N.A.F.T.A AGREEMENTS AND WE ARE JUST WITNG FOR THE RULING AND WHERE IT GETS CLASSIFIED !YOU NEVER START IMPORTING WITHOUT THAT RULING OR ELSE YOU CAN GET STOPPED AND HUGE FINES SLAPPED ON YOU ,IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IMPORTING WAITING THEN FOR A RULING !! THAT'S WHEN MOST THINGS GO SIDEWAYS ON YOU AND NORMALLY IT IS OVER ,BECAUSE THE DAIRY FARMERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCY PLUG IT ,IF THEY CAN !! THE FUNNY THING IS THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO PLUG MINE BECAUSE I HELPED THE FEDS DESIGN THE TARRIFF WALL AND I KNOW WHERE EVERY HOLE IS AND MORE I CAN POKE THERE ! SO IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME TILL THE WHOLE THING CRUMBLES ,YOU JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT CARRY LARGE AMOUNTS OF DEBT !! THE FEDS WILL NOT BAIL YOU OUT WITH FREE TAX PAYERS MONEY ,IF YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE QUOTA BUSINESS FOR A WHILE ,YOU MADE IT ALL BACK AND MORE !! SO WHY WOULD ANY DAIRY FARMER THINK THEY SHOULD GET A BAIL OUT CHECK !! ME TO AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE GOT IT (Edited for language) FOR ALL THESE YEARS !! BILL DENBY ,EXPORTER /IMPORTER

Bill,you are talking like its still 2003,its time to move on.That was over 10 years ago,nothing you said back then made any sense and it still doesn't!

I was at some of those meetings when the contract exports were being debated back then and 95% of the people in the room knew at that time they would never survive a WTO challenge,to get bent all out of shape at DFO is entirely misdirected.

Its pretty simple,you want to milk cows without Quota move south of the border!

Instead of castigating Mr. Denby for being stuck in 2003, supply managed farmers, especially the anonymous ones, need to examine why they're still stuck in 1973 when nothing they said then made any sense either.
\
And, I mean, really, how could exporting milk to the US at the world price trigger a WTO challenge by US interests in the first place, let alone a WTO challenge eventually detrimental to the Canadian producers willing to export this milk?

The true villian in this tragedy is still supply management because the aspiring milk exporters were proposing to make a mockery of the sacred "cost-of-production" mantra - the inconvenient truth is that if DFO didn't vigorously oppose this export scheme, we would then have two costs of production - one the artificial and completely-bloated one used by DFO and which they used to bully consumers and other farmers, and the other one used by those producers producing milk in the real world, and who were not bullying either consumers or other farmers in the process.

It's exactly this sort of selfish truth-bending, and blame-shifting on the part of supply management which makes supply management continually-more disliked by non-quota owners.

Finally, since you have chosen to remain anonymous, you weren't at any of the meetings, and nothing you post can ever be given any evidentiary value at all - either sign it, and therefore be able to prove it, or shut up and get off the site!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Does this fellow really think he can order people off this site?

His arrogance always appears to be unlimited.

Supply management has had the completely-unfettered and completely-unlimited ability to bully consumers and other farmers for 40 years, and they've done just exactly that.

Yet, when a handful of readily-identifiable people comes along in 2014, and gives supply management supporters a long-overdue, and well-deserved "taste of their own medicine", the supply management bullies, like all bullies everywhere, hide behind the rampart of patronizing and dismissive anonymity, and otherwise vividly demonstrate they can "dish it out" but simply "can't take it".

Therefore, when supply management stops bullying me at the grocery store and at auction sales, I'll stop heaping abuse on supply management on this site.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Forum readers would get tired out quickly if they counted how many times a thoughtful, reasoned opinion on this forum was responded to by Mr. Thompson with a chanting, bullying, patronizing diatribe.

Yet, he defines anonymity as bullying regardless of the merits and contents of a post. 

Then, take a look at the constant stream of material from the "handful of readily-identifiable" people and you can judge their credibility by the quality of their posts for yourslf and relate it to the reputations they have earned. Names like Thompson, Schmidt, DENBY, Black et al. The patterns are clear to us all. Enough said.

Most farmers, SM or not, won't dignify them with a response.

The way this forum has gone now, this "handful of readily-identifiable" people has made the signed posts form the least credible contributions to the forum.

If this forum's editors followed their own rules for posters as shown on the site's reply page then most or all of Thompson's posts would have never been published.

It's like this people, an anonymous opinion can never be thoughtful or reasoned - it's definitionally impossible because:

(A) the author can never be held legally accountable
(B) the opinion could easily be a "spam" posting by someone planted on the site to do just that as a public relations ploy.

Furthermore, if the posting had any merit whatsoever, the poster would be glad and proud to sign his/her name.

In contrast, the few readily-identifiable opponents of supply management on this site are, by definition, prepared to defend our statements, and our opinions, in a court of law.

Furthermore, even on a technical merit basis, what may appear to supply managed supporters to be thoughtful and/or reasoned is often seen to be complete garbage by someone with even the most-basic understanding of economics.

Most telling, however, is that no supply management supporter on this site has ever challenged, even anonymously, the increasingly-obvious point that supply management will, if government doesn't do it sooner, be gleefully torn to shreds by non-supply managed farmers who have had enough of the financial bullying by supply management, and who simply aren't prepared to take it any more.

All that anonymous supply management supporters can do in response, is "circle-the wagons" by blubbering absurdities and resorting to the only thing, other than gouging consumers and financially bullying other farmers, supply management supporters have ever been able to do well - shooting the messenger.

Get over it people, anonymity is the ultimate form of bullying and also serves to make it increasingly clear that since anonymity, and the bullying power inherently therein, seems to be the stock-in-trade of supply management supporters, supply management really won't be missed at all.

All in all, my desire to expose supply management supporters as whiners and cry-babies who can dish it out, but who can't take it, is working well-beyond my wildest expectations. Thank you, anonymous supply management supporters on this site, for continuing to make it abundantly-clear to those few farmers who don't already detest supply management, exactly why they should.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

agreed I don't get how the editors can post thompsons posts either. Maybe editors you can explain how you rationalize allowing thompsons posts on here when they are degrading, name calling.

Editor: Comment will be published if re-posted and signed

Why

he really does. after learning more about the terrorists happenings in the last few days we need to resolve like our government to not let bullies quiet us. we need not live in fear of thompsons negativity, constant name calling and threats to throw unsigned posters off this site.
folks we have to feel sorry for the people close to him if he treats people on online forums this way imagine what it is like face to face or else he is just a coward and talks big behind a screen. never met him so I have no idea

I'm the Blyth Hotel almost every Thursday night at 6 for the weekly Divorced Farmers Wing Night (Brazilian wings), and have been doing so for years, and would invite any divorced member of the anonymous rabble on this site to join us - if you're married, even unhappily, stay home. If you come, ask the waitress, any waitress, what table Statler and Waldorf are at, and that's where I'll be.

During that time I've had a lot of people I don't know come to whatever table we happen to be at and:

(A) thank me for "sticking it to" the bullies and cowards in supply management,
(B) point out that, if anything, my criticisms of supply management don't go near far enough
(C) often buy me a drink,

However, I've never had anybody come to my table to complain - but if anyone ever did, I'd be able to tell if it was someone on this site because they'd have a bag over their head in order to stay anonymous.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

Yep you did .
It is all about the higher educated knowing best along with knowing how to be a total*** . (language edited)
Reminds me of mom telling me "some people are single for good reason" .

Wow...this is unbelievable.

DFO didn't vigorously oppose this export scheme - they set it up, ran it and tried to defend it against the US and NZ challenge.

Yes, this sort of selfish truth-bending, and blame-shifting does cause a lot of dislike.

Another clear and undeniable example that signing it does not prove it. So maybe take your advise and

Anonymous comment modified by editor

I challenge the above poster, or anyone else for that matter, to give one verifiable example, up to, and/or including, published minutes of DFO Board meetings, demonstrating that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario DID NOT vigorously, and continuously, oppose the proposed milk exporting scheme.

Firstly, given the number of haughty, dismissive, and almost sneeringly-derisive anonymous posters on this site, all of who do nothing but trash the proposed export scheme, there's no way that that DFO would have been this significantly at odds with this many of its admittedly lesser-enlightened members.

Secondly, and I mean, really, to claim that DFO would defend this, or any, scheme that would make a laughing stock out of the principles of supply management, especially the "principle" of cost of production, and the "principle" that supply management is good for Canadian consumers, is ludicrous to the extreme.

Thirdly, and this goes straight to the heart of why DFO would never support, and could have never supported, this type of scheme, is that this export scheme would have generated a two-price system for milk, one domestic, and one export which is, if my understanding of trade is correct, dumping by definition because the export price is seen to be at below the cost of production. The problem is that this export price would be based on the real-world cost of production, while the domestic price would have been at the bloated, and completely-artificial DFO cost of production which allows dairy farmers to be financial bullies in the farm community.

Therefore, unless and/or until one of you anonymous fools can prove what you are writing, get off the site and let people who aren't afraid to stand behind their principles deal with any criticism they might get from people who know what they are talking about, have something to say, and aren't afraid to sign their names when they do.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It had to be arms-length so DFO subbed out the admin work to one of the big consulting firms but they ran the Ontario Export Contract Exchange until they lost the trade challenge and were forced to stop in March 2003.

Mr. Denby claims he had a contract with a US-based dairy processor, and he, if I understand Mr. Denby's posting correctly, got this contract entirely without any so-called "help" from DFO.

Yet, the above anonymous poster claims that DFO "ran the contract export system" Mr. Denby would have us believe he didn't need and didn't use.

Therefore, since the benefit of the doubt always goes to the person who is not anonymous, I'm beginning to smell a very-large rat, a rat with a blue cow's head.

The only apparent difference between exporting sugar grown in Canada for processing in the US, and exporting milk produced in Canada for processing in the US, is the supply management system set up solely to enhance the farm gate incomes of Canadian dairy and poultry farmers at the expense of consumers and non-supply managed farmers.

Therefore, given the virtually-identical circumstances facing farmers who would export milk, and farmers who do export sugar beets, would the dairy export system have been thwarted if it wasn't for supply management and the two-price system this export scheme would, by definition, have meant?

Furthermore, suspicious type that I am, and based on my experience, deservedly so, I'm beginning to suspect that the most-senior people at DFO knew the two-price system for milk was doomed to fail, but decided to give Mr. Denby's people enough rope to hang themselves, while at the same time deciding to give the seemingly-always-gullible rank-and-file members of DFO, the impression that DFO was going along with an export scheme they secretly knew was doomed - and given the postings on this site from anonymous, and obiously very-gullible, supply management supporters, any ploy of this sort by DFO appears to have worked perfectly, until now.

The point of the story is that then, as now, as always, DFO and the elitist and very-protectionist farmers who run it, have absolutely no interest in enhancing anyone's interests except those who, like them, already own quota, and who will, therefore, go to great lengths, often unreasonable lengths, to protect the system which rewards them so well at the huge expense of others.

And really, who could possibly ever trust DFO? - after all, they produced study, after study, after study, for close to 40 years, all claiming to show cross-border retail price equivalency for milk and dairy products, yet finally admitted the truth in late 2010 when they revealed information that Ontario consumers were paying almost 38% more for milk than US consumers and that the Ontario farm gate price of milk was within pennies per liter of the US retail price.

Even bigger hypocrites than the supply management system itself, is the continuing series of "empty suits" who occupy the Federal Ag Minister's chair, particularly the present occupier, Gerry Ritz, who fell all over himself to give western grain farmers the opportunity to sell their wheat outside the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board, but who is doing absolutely nothing except thwart the ability of Mr. Denby, and others, to do exactly the same thing with milk and dairy products.

Indeed, somebody is telling a "porky" and all $35 billion in quota values worth of evidence points, as always, to the evil empire of supply management.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

US border tariffs and a variety of non-tariff barriers make it virtually impossible to get milk or dairy products into the US.  The US and NZ challenge stopped it completely, with no exemption for non-quota holders, in 2003.

The US average dairy tariff rate is about 90 %.

US "effective tariff rates" are actually higher than Canada's. 

That's why US import levels are the lowest in the world.

Some people here are so incredibly SM-fixated that there minds' dismiss or ignore any information that does not fit their ordained world view.  It is called selection bias.

Very similar to conspiracy theorists and just as pointless to engage, so I will stop trying after this post.

Perhaps we should all leave this deteriorating forum to the "handful of readily-identifiable" people that have indeed made their signed posts into the least credible contributions to the forum. They deserve only each other.

I've spoken to supply management opponents who admire what Thompson is doing here and I've spoken to supply management supporters who hate the guy. I like to think I'm open minded and can see some merit in the views expressed by both sides in this debate. At the moment, if I had to vote I would say that Thompson is losing ground.

I really don't care how popular I may appear to the anonymous who post on this site, I speak for all those 30 year-old non supply managed farmers who, thanks to the bullying power of supply management, will spend their entire lives as farm employees, rather than as farm owners - their opinion is the only opinion that matters to me, and, if anything, I'm encouraged whenever a member of this site's anonymous rabble thinks I'm losing, because it means that the interests of economic truth and the interests of the next generation of farmers are both winning,

The issue is, as always, to make agriculture better for all - if it means demolishing, by any means necessary, the mindset of, and the entitlements of, those who would use legislation to pit farmers against each other, then it means that I am not "losing", and never could.

Thank you again, anonymous rabble, for making it clear to me that I am making progress.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

So which is it ? You can't have it both ways . Well not in the real world but maybe in the world of R S Thompson . You say that you speak for all the 30 year old non SM farmers then you go on to say that they "will spend thieir entire lives as farm employees, rather than as farm owners .
First do they not own a farm already , or are they just trying to blame some one else for the price of farm land ? Farmers are not always to blame for land prices and further if young people think they are going to have Daddy give it to them then they are like you living in a dream world . If they want to wait till they are 50 to start paying off a 25 or more year mortgage then they are not too sharp either . But then if they are listening to you or asking you for advice they well you know !!

An article posted today in the Globe and Mail clearly states that ever since quota was capped years ago, speculative investment in quota was directed into farmland.

This is not news to anyone, not even those in denial.

Raube Beuerman

When, late Sunday evening, I checked the comments section in response to this Globe and Mail article, 20 responses were scathing denunciations of supply management and everything it stands for, and the one letter in favour of supply management was from one hapless sod who defended supply management claiming, quite-incorrectly, that, at least, Canadian consumers weren't exposed to BST.

The implications from this, admittedly anonymous, series of responses would seem to make two things clear:

(1) the denunciations of supply management generally used even stronger language than what I am regularly denounced for using on this site.
(2) the sole defender of supply management didn't seem to know Canada's dirtly secrets about BST, which are that:
(A) Canadian dairy farmers can import BST for their own use and since there's no way of detecting it in milk, Canadian consumers, unlike American consumers, have no way of choosing whether they buy BST in their dairy products or not.
(B) Canada places no non-tariff restrictions on the import of dairy products containing BST.

Therefore, since the one person in 20 who defended supply management, did so for entirely the wrong reasons - and since the Globe and Mail is widely-considered to be Canada's national newspaper, and read studiously by opinion makers and opinion leaders, supply management, notwithstanding the pompous and vacuous boasting by anonymous supporters on this site, is, by any measure, on the wrong side of not just basic economics, but also increasingly on the wrong side of public opinion.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

This may also show that public opinion can be be successfully manipulated by people who campaign tirelessly against something. Given the zealousness of a relatively small number of campaigners it's actually surprising that supply management has the strong level of support that it still does.
Which leads me to wonder why anyone could hate honest, hardworking, dairy farmers like some people on this site do.

Given the tireless, and overzealous campaigning supply management has done to manipulate public opinion and deny and/or subvert basic economic principles in the process, the above poster is simply lashing out in anonymous frustration because he/she is unable to cope when somebody gives supply management a long-overdue and well-deserved taste of its own medicine.

In addition, characterizing dairy farmers as being honest and hardworking is patronizing and dismissive to all those non-dairy farmers who are equally, if not more honest and hardworking.

It's exactly this type of "look at how wonderful we are" nonsense on the part of supply management which is increasingly antagonizing those farmers who have to endure it, and also exactly why supply management won't ever be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The point is that all successful farmers are hard working and there aren't many of us left. That's why it is really sad when one farmer publicly attacks another or a group of farmers. It's actually bad for all farmers. Even worse when a member of any tiny minority acts like a bully or is hostile, rude, or insulting it makes the entire minority look bad. It may not be a good thing but people judge minorities this way.

You seem to have missed the point...the point being that there is no way we are all "in it together". SM, ethanol, neocides...oh yes and just outright greed.

Actually we are all in it together and you've just outlined some of the challenges farmers face in trying to work together. Or perhaps you prefer to live in a world where we tear each other apart?

What is truly sad is when people think it's better to say nothing rather than protest the ability of one group of farmers to continue their 40-years of ability to screw consumers and be financial bullies in the farm community.

What's truly bad for all farmers is that one group of farmers has a legislated, and absolute advantage over every other group of farmers, and that's not just bad, it's wrong.

What's absolutely unacceptable is to do nothing to make things better for younger farmers who, thanks to the bullying power of supply management, will live their entire lives as second class citizens in their own community.

Get over it, anonymous rabble - supply management has "attacked" consumers and their fellow farmers for over 40 years, has used every disingenuous argument in the book to do so, and then some, and is now doing whatever it can to make the next generation of non-supply managed farmers, a "lost" generation.

In addition, when somebody comes on this site and stays anonymous, they invite all the criticism anyone can dish out, and invite all the rudeness anyone can offer - in other words, it's completely appropriate, and obviously necessary, to bully anonymous people because, by definition, anonymity is the ultimate form of bullying, and by staying anonymous, people are demonstrating that they can dish it out, but simply can't take it.

Or, as I've pointed out before, when supply management stops bullying me in the grocery store and stops bullying me at farm auction sales, then I, and others, can stop doing the same thing to them on this site.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

"Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others". Wikipedia

In the post above Mr. Thompson readily admits he is a bully. I commend him for his willingness to admit this. Going forward I hope the moderators on this site will accept his self declaration as fact. It's no longer name calling when used in context with Thompson and his henchmen it's just a descriptive term he has chosen for himself like you would use for cattleman or rural resident or horse racing enthusiast.

Oh and one more thing. When caught or confronted bullies often blame their abusive behaviors on their victims. IE so and so was always getting in my way so I beat him to a pulp.

That post really hit the nail on the head! Elsewhere in our lives we won't tolerate bullies whether they are schoolyard bullies or Internet bullies.

The above definition of bullying describes supply management perfectly - yet every member of this site's anonymous rabble goes into byzantine contortions in order to avoid admitting it.

What's the big deal? - why is it perfectly acceptable for supply management to have been agricultural community and grocery store bullies for 4 decades, but not acceptable for a handful of people to use strong language to oppose it?

If one has to use bullying tactics to stand up to a bully, we need more of it in the farm community, not less. Ontario Pork stood up to the supply management bully when, at its 2013 annual general meeting, delegates, and not anonymous delegates for that matter, passed a resolution, by a margin of 68 -13 to "urge government to place trade ahead of protectionism" - and that's the sort of "stand-up-for-yourself" action sorely needed in what is, judging from the anonymous twaddle on this site, an overly-milquetoast farm community.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You do not speak for all 30 year old farmers, we can speak for ourselves!!

I bunch of us were talking at a get-together recently and someone raised the issue of your views. Most don't read this forum and none of us were from milk or poultry farms, although most knew quite a few.

After lively discussions over beverages, not one said they agree with you.

Did you ever think that people that agree with you likely seek you out and those that don't -probably stay well away.

Please speak for yourself.

Its bad enough putting up with anonymous posters, but now we have an anonymous poster admittedly posting while under the influence.

I mean really, you would have to be plastered to claim that you don't read this forum and at the same time take issue with Mr.Thompson's views.

And you would also have to be completely hammered to claim that you are not from milk or poultry farms, yet don't agree with Mr.Thompson views.

Maybe if milk was more affordable than other "beverages", this poster would not write such nonsense.

Raube Beuerman

I now see that the comments about the least credible posts being signed are TRUE.

Please read more carefully before you respond next time.

1. I did not post under the influence, read it again and you will find I was recounting  a RECENT discussion with friends.

2. I clearly said MOST of the group did not read the forum not ALL. Two of my nine friends had seen this string of posts and we described them to the group during the discussion.

3. The fact that not all non-SM farmers think like Mr. Thompson and that he cannot speak for all of us was the whole point of the post!

4. On the issue of affordable beverages, milk this weekend at $4.59 for 4 litres is a lot cheaper than the draft we were enjoying but the bar serves draft!

I actually hope you were drinking, otherwise what excuse do you have for writing such nonsense?

It would appear the above seemingly-obligatory anonymous poster has never studied either group dynamics or interpersonal dynamics at the college or University level, because if he/she had done so, he/she would know that thirty-year-olds, especially poorly-educated thirty-year-olds, often aren't emotionally mature enough to be willing to offer dissenting opinions in group social settings the way they would "spill their guts" if in a private one-on-one setting.

My experience supports the wisdom of this phenomenon entirely - any number of times I've seen individuals a few days, or a few weeks after a social setting in which some topic or other was discussed, only to have that individual tell me - "I didn't say much the other night because even though so-and-so is a complete jerk and I disagree with him entirely, it wasn't the right time or the right place to tell him so".

Even at 64 I still don't hear a lot of controversial topics discussed in social settings, but when it comes to a visceral hatred of supply management, what I hear in one-on-one conversations all the time would blister the ears of every member of this site's anonymous supply management-loving rabble.

The difference between what people, especially younger people, say in public and what they say in private, especially when it comes to supply management, is the point the above poster, and his/her false sense of bravado, missed entirely.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Wow, be careful when you pile it that high!!

What a bunch of condescending self-delusion.

Most of the group went to university together and it was a very good discussion.

You know nothing about us.

It's obvious that the above poster is anonymous, and therefore, a coward - it's also obvious that the above poster has no education in, and/or understanding of, either group dynamics or interpersonal dynamics. It's also obvious that the above poster is long on bravado and short on any understanding of what it takes to be credible.

It's also obvious that the above poster, and probably most of his/her friends, wasted their University education because they appear to have graduated without the ability to critically, responsibly, and objectively, examine issues in any other way than the sophomoric way they would have done had they not gone to University at all, and had simply stayed at home after finishing high school.

I'm going to venture a guess that any group of university educated friends who collectively know nothing about economics, nothing about sociology, nothing about psychology, nothing about deductive logic, and nothing about expressing opinions responsibly, are probably animal science or crop science Aggies because everybody else should know/must know at least a basic understanding of one of these topics by the time he/she graduates - if they don't, theirs truly was a wasted education.

There are people who spend four years at University, pass every course, yet graduate having learned nothing at all - it would appear that at least one of those people is now an anonymous poster on this site.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Ever notice how everyone ELSE always misses the point, Mr. Thompson?

This sort of thing is normal for Raube.
Good on you for calling him out on this behavior.
Don't expect an apology though.

Your original post claiming that you were standing around with a bunch of 30 year old non-supply managed farmers, and not any one agreed with Mr.Thompson's views is completely nonsensical and deserves as much ridicule as I can dish out.

In addition, I think you are completely dishonest in making such claims, since when you claim that in anonymously, we have no way of knowing what type of farmer you are, and you most likely are a poultry or dairy farmer as far as I am concerned, cleverly(although not clever enough) attempting to discredit Mr. Thompson.

Raube Beuerman

Um maybe you missed the post where Mr. Thompson labeled himself and some of his allies here as bullies?? Of course like all bullies he has a good reason for his bullying. Isn't it hard to discredit anyone more than that? Bullies try to destroy their fellow man.

Editor: Comment deleted in accordance with our guidelines.

Editor: comment deleted

The Achilles Heel of supply management on this site is the tremendous extent to which the -

"I'm an anonymous supply management supporter, and therefore I'm right" -

mentality is fixated into their very souls.

Therefore, it's no real surprise to see the above anonymous poster haughtily, dismissively, and selectively ignore the unpalatable truth that Ontario farmers sought out export opportunities for milk only because the bullying power of supply management:
(1) keeps people from getting into dairy and poultry farming
(2) results in a declining primary demand for dairy products unlike in the US where it is still growing.

Therefore, the only logical avenue for aspiring dairy farmers to have chosen, given the "double-whammy" of astronomical quota prices, and declining Canadian primary demand, was to seek out export opportunities.

It's also no surprise to see the above anonymous poster haughtily, dismissively, and selectively ignore the equally-unpalatable truth that it simply doesn't matter how much supply management supporters try to twist things to their benefit, the next generation of non-supply managed farmers doesn't care - as far as they're concerned supply management, and bullying power it possesses over them, can't be destroyed soon enough.

It's also no surprise to see the above anonymous poster stoop to the only thing supply management supporters seen to know how to do well, and that is to shoot the messenger, any messenger, all the messengers who dare to challenge supply management, and who don't do it anonymously.

I, therefore, suggest to the above anonymous poster - if you're so convinced this forum is deteriorating, it's because the anonymous posters on it have:

(A) because of their unsupportable claims
(B) because of the way they anonymously denigrate anyone doesn't agree with their elitist and aristocratic way of seeing Canadian agriculture.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

This forum has gone off the rails with their garbage tirades.

I will never stoop to respond to them.

This post is totally correct, one of the individuals involved in purchasing milk for exports told me he would contact the so called office of the exporters and have to wait for answers. this office had to contact DFO people to get the answers for him. The Export idea was a TERRIBLY poor thought out venture. Amazing how many business people got involved in it though. I did, and have always regretted it. We were very foolish. I still remember the lady involved with the Georgian Bay Group telling me I d be surprised to see the list of names of farmers willing to join them, IF it was allowed. Some of the LARGEST producers were on that list I was told.

Hearsay is when identifiable people do the "He said, she said" exercise - and therefore hearsay has no evidentiary value whatsoever.

When the above anonymous poster engaged in hearsay, it became, by definition, hearsay to the second power which is one step worse than having no evidentiary value at all.

Yet, by the definition seemingly used by anonymous posters on this site, this hearsay to the second power is sane, rational, and believable even though none of what was posted can be verified at all.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Oh excuse me Mr.Thompson, I didn't realize this was your own personal forum!

You may have had some ruling thumb and used your bullying tactics in your classrooms but that doesn't apply here!

That said,l was replying to Mr.Denby,not you!... and if you had of been in those meeting rooms you would have known it wasn't just the US involved in the contracts challenge it was New Zealand as well.
These meetings that (as you say) I wasn't there were run by the DFO, so the notion that the DFO were against the export contracts is ridiculous.

My whole point is Mr.Denby was always trying to find loopholes in the rules for his own profit,and then, when caught and penalized,blames the entities which caught and penalized him,rather than himself.Of course then he comes on here and rants about something that he no longer is part of...Thank goodness for that!

OK, anonymous types, for about the hundredth time - if you remain anonymous, not only were you not at the meeting, the meeting didn't happen.

In addition, what is it about anonymous fools trying to blame others for what they do themselves - instead of blaming Mr. Denby, who at least has the moral and ethical fibre to identify himself, for "trying to find loopholes for his own profit", why can't the anonymous supply management-loving rabble on this site admit that "finding loopholes for their own profit", and at the expense of everyone else, is what supply management is all about?

Once again, for about the two-hundreth time, it's this arrogance and dismissive attitude on the part of supply management towards everyone who doesn't have quota, which guarantees that it will be gleefully torn to shreds by non-supply managed farmers who, at some point, hopefully soon, will have simply had enough.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

WE AS A GROUP WORKED WITH THE FEDERAL TRADE DEPARTMENT AND PUT INPLACE A EXPORT PROGRAM THAT WAS TRADE FRIENDLY AND COULD BE IF NEEDED DEFENDED AT W.T.O. !! BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER THE D.F.O. DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT WE NON QUOTA MILK PRODUCERS COULD EXPORT RAW MILK TO THE U.S.A. !WE SET THE PROGRAM UP THAT WE WERE SATALITE MILK PRODUCERS OF A U.S. DAIRY CO-OP AND WE ALL WERE MEMBERS !BEAT THAT ONE ,YOU TELL ME HOW THE U.S.A. COULD EVER CHALLANGE CANADA !! I DESIGNED IT AND TRIED IT AND HAD A LEGAL IMPORT PERMITT TO SHIP THE RAW MILK TO DAIRYLEE IN NEW YORK AND THE BUY BACK AND SHIP PROCESSED PRODUCTS BACK IN TO CANADA UNDER N.A. F.T.A WITH NO DUTY APLLIED ON ANYTHING !! THE DFO WENT WILD AND GOT MY LEGAL PERMIT ON HOLD BECAUSE THEY SAID WE WERE SMUGGLING DRUGS IN OUR MILK !!REMEMBER THIS WAS DURING 911 !! THAT IS YOUR DIRTY D.F.O THAT IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY NOT A FARM ORGANIZATION AND THE PROVINCE PROTECTED THEM ,THE FEDS HUNG US ALL OUT TO DRY !! WELCOME TO CANADA !! BILL DENBY IMPORTER /EXPORTER

Insofar as Mr. Denby's group was composed of "satellite" members of a US dairy processing co-op, this business structure appears remarkably similar to the system by which Ontario farmers grow sugar beets for processing by the Michigan Sugar Company, a co-operative owned by about 1,000 sugar beet farmers, and based in Bay City MI.

Let me see if I've got this straight, and let me see if I can write it succinctly enough so that even anonymous supply management supporters can read it without their lips getting tired - Ontario farmers who are, ostensibly, members of a farmer-owned Michigan based sugar-processing co-op, get no hassles from anyone by being members of an American co-op and by growing agricultural commodities in Canada for processing in the US.

Yet, when Mr. Denby and like-minded Ontario farmers proposed to do exactly the same thing with milk as is being done with sugar with no problems whatsoever, nobody should have minded one iota - the "fly in the ointment" was, as Mr. Denby pointed out, and which should be of no surprise to anyone, DFO.

The obvious problem at DFO was that Mr. Denby's proposed business structure was going to expose supply management for exactly what it is - a small group of self-centred elitists who hide behind legislated priveleges in order to gouge and bully Ontario consumers.

Now, just exactly where are those anonymous blow-hards who, just a day ago on this site, bombastically crowed that DFO wasn't hindering Mr. Denby's cause, but was actually helping it? Could they have been asleep at too many meetings they were never at, and which were never held in the first place?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Even you can't deny that milk is more perishable. The export marketing scheme required producers to fill their contracts but the processor was not under the same obligations to receive. Without getting too complicating in analyzing the business structure basically it was rejected because it was similar to the pigeon scheme, and good thing it was shut down before too many lost everything.

This is not a pro SM post, just saying that it might have worked if there was a balance in the contracts to protect the producers.

The difference between milk and sugar beets is beets are produced annually and milk daily. And beets can be stored and not spoil for a while before delivery.

That a difference in relative perishability formed, or ever could form, a substantive difference in trade regimes for sugar beets and milk is the epitome of grasping at straws, especially given the fact that the dairy products I consumed when visiting my daughter in Korea, came from New Zealand - a country a lot further away from Korea than New York State is from southern Ontario.

Secondly, the Korean market for dairy products is, of course, one Canada could easily enter if our dairy industry wasn't so-intent on avoiding reality at all costs.

Furthermore, any real, or imagined, imbalance in favour of individual US buyers over individual Canadian sellers is a matter of contract law, in exactly the same way it is for Canadian farmers who sell hogs into the US, and/or for Canadian farmers who grow soybeans on contract for Japanese buyers, and not the jurisdiction of either DFO or WTO - again more futile, after-the-fact, grasping at straws by supply management.

In addition, it is incredulous for supply management, the ultimate in Ponzi schemes, to claim that something with the strong potential to undermine supply management was, itself, little more than a Ponzi scheme - and is exactly why supply management is, as always, nothing more than people saying one thing, and doing another.

Sigh! - why can't anonymous posters on this site, especially those who are supply management supporters, have a "Think" button on their computers which they are forced to use before they push "Send"?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I would say that Thompson has challenged BF to expose SM as a ponzi scheme . Is BF up to the challenge ?

My understanding of a Ponzi scheme is that the first people in make out like bandits, while the last people in get fleeced, and that describes supply management to a T.

The first people into supply management got quota for nothing, and were able to sell it for bags of money - however, not if but when, supply management collapses, the last people in will go spectacularly-bankrupt because they will be owing huge amounts of money on now-worthless quota, as well as deserving no sympathy from anyone for "rolled the dice" and lost.

Therefore, I challenge anyone to prove that supply management is NOT a Ponzi scheme.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

For example how does one respond when asked to prove that they weren't sired by an alien, or that GMOs don't cause whatever health problem is being alleged this week.

I more than amply demonstrated exactly how, and why supply management is a Ponzi scheme and challenged anyone to prove me wrong.

In response, all that the above member of this site's anonymous rabble could do is avoid the subject and resort to meaningless semantics.

I win!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Now just wait a minute the Thompson .
1 ) You did not get BF to print that they would expose SM for being a ponzi scheme .
2 ) It is your opinion that it is a ponzi scheme .

Given those facts you have done nothing yet ! Other than give an opinion which means nothing signed or not !! Better yet it is worth what it was paid for it !!

I never challenged Better Farming to do anything, and nowhere is there even the slightest hint, suggestion, or nuance that I did.

I simply pointed out that Better Farming didn't need to expose supply management as a Ponzi scheme because the evidence was too obvious, and I then pointed out that evidence, and suggested that nobody could deny what would be fundamentally obvious to any reasonably-intelligent lay-person.

Once again the anonymous rabble on this site is so-consumed with rage, and so-unable to deny the truth about the system which has long-since bullied consumers and other farmers, that they keep shooting the only arrow they have in their quiver - the arrow of obfuscation which they shoot wildly in the hopes of shooting the messenger, any messenger, every messenger.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

Denby put his own milk on a truck and attempted to run it into the US.

The USDA and US Customs sealed the truck's contents and later ordered him to dump it.

The was Denby's export experience.

It was all reported in BF and OF.

B.F.WOULD NOT PRINT THE REAL TRUTH AS TO WHAT HAPPENED ,MY LEGAL PERMIT LIKE I SAID WAS PUT IN TO DETENTION BECAUSE THE DFO TLOD US CUSTOMS WE WERE SMUGGLEING COCAINE IN OUR MILK ,I CAN SUPPLY THE DOCUMENTS TO BETTER FARMING IF THEY WILL PRINT THEM !! RIGHT AWAY AND PUT THEM INTOUCH WITH HOMELAND SERCURITY ,WERE WE HAD THE MEETING TO DISCUSS WHAT THE DFO PULLED OFF !! IT CAUSED QUITE A NATIONAL ISSUE FOR CANADA AND THE U.S. BUT WE DEALT WITH IT !! THAT IS WHY I COULD HAVE KEPT SHIPPING ,BUT DFO SEIZED MY QUOTA AND HIT US WITH A BIG FINANCIAL AND LEGAL BILL'S TRYING TO BREAK US FIRST !!DID NOT WORK ,WE ALL FOUGHT BACK ,SURPRISED THE HELL OUT OF THEM !! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT ,DO NOT ALLWAYS BELEIVE WHAT YOU RED IN A FARM PAPER !!BILL DENBY EXPORT MILK BROKER 11DFO'MOST WANTED FREEDOM FARMER !

Whoever your group was talking to then sure didn't know much about WTO and its International rules.
It was a long time ago and when it was finally shut down not many Quota holding producers felt sorry for the ones that were selling over quota milk or the ones that actually sold quota thinking they were onto to something good.

If anything we should feel sorry for the small farmers that were taken in by the contract program and were only using it to eventually buy quota.They were deceived into thinking it was all legitimate.They had no idea the loophole would soon be plugged!

I find it bewildering that Ritz can argue out of both sides of his mouth in that our neighbours to the south are protectionist, yet we are even more so as the only country remaining on the planet that uses supply management in agriculture.

I liken it to Jim Carey's role in the comedy movie Liar Liar.

Raube Beuerman

After Ritz and the Conservatives get done patting themselves on the back and in a year or two (after all it has been almost 7 yaers since COOL came out!) when the border does open what happens to the CETA and Korean trade deals, are they worth "spit"!
After all we never could fill our Pork and Beef quota's with Europe prior to the trade deals and now that it looks like we can maybe go back to good old US of A as like it was before those deals look absolutely worthless.

You don't suppose that the Conserative Party,whose major support is in the Beefy West and the given away artisan cheese market is in Quebec has anything to do with Mr.Ritz working so hard to reslove COOL do you ?!

But hey, why not? Let's punish others also. Raise 'em to the moon. And why stop there....let's build a wall around Canada, good'n high too, nobody gets in....nobody gets out.

Raube Beuerman

WOW ,THIS HAS REALLY OPEN UP THE CAN OF WORMS ,SO IT IS TIME TO TELL EVERYONE DFO RAN MY PROGRAM AND GOT AWAY WITH IT FOR YEARS WHEN THEY NEEDED TO GET RIP OF SURPLUS MILK OR CREAM !!REMEMBER WHEN GEORGE SENT OUT A REQUEST TO FARMERS ABOUT WHO WAS THERE VET ,WANTED HERD HEALTH INFO AND A LOT MORE IN A 50 MILE CIRCLE OF WINSOR !!WELL GUESS WHY THEY WERE APPLYING FOR A IMPORT PERMITT TO THE U.S.A. INTO MICHICAN FOR PROCESSING AND THEN REEXPORTING BACK INTO CANADA DUTY FREE TO FILL TARRIFF FREE QUOTA UNDER NAFTA OR WTO ,I KNEW ALL ABOUT THERE LITTLE GAME !!IT WORKED BECAUSE I HELPED DESIGN IT WHEN I HELPED AG CANADA WITH TARRIFF WALL PROTECTION AND HOW TO GET IN AND OUT LEGALLY !!WITH NO VIOLATION OF TRADE AGREEMENTS ,BUT THEY DID BECAUSE( DFO) THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT AGENCY NOT PRIVATE OPERATING LIKE I WAS !! YOU DAIRY FARMER ARE SO STUPID AND YOU DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH YOUR MILK !!SHIPPING IT TO THE U.S.A. AND THEN BRING IT BACK AND SELL IT TO A IMPORTER !!MAYBE ME ??? BILL DENBY IMPORTER /EXPORTER P.S. THE REASONWHY THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT PRINT THERE NAMES

Editor: partial deletion in accordance with our guidelines

Then there are the people that do sign their names,exposing their whole sorid, corrupt,shady past for all to see.Some of these "signed" people couldn't get along with their dog let alone the community and people around them.
I suppose they enjoy the "notoriety", the "me against the world" syndrome.They all belong to some big whiners and complainers association,spewing their negativity on everything from Global trade to why so many damn bicycles on our roads.
I say put them all in a big room and see how many houses we can heat with the hot air!

Bill Denby 654

Brenda Karagiannis 3888

Andy Letham 16055

John Macklem 2338

Donna Villemaire 4742

Being anonymous is a mystery to me - it's like anonymous people feel the need to worship, or feel kinship to, Gollum, the furtive creature in Tolkein novels. Even more of a mystery to me is why anonymous people seem to feel the vicarious need to assign guilt by association, or, alternatively, by any means available.

More to the point, I suggest the above posting is the epitome of why I believe anonymity to be the ultimate form of bullying,
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: partial deletion to conform with our guidelines

I have posted my thoughts here on many topics and I have never engaged in name calling or bullying.
I urge the moderators to keep discussions focused on ideas not personalities. Just because someone signs their name they should not get a license to attack others.
I'm sure we've all known kids who throw tantrums when they don't get their way. Sometimes they take their ball and go home and other times they make things so miserable that everyone else wants to leave.
Don't let that happen here!

The above anonymous poster claims to have posted about many topics on this site, but even though anonymity is the ultimate form of bullying, the poster incongruously claims to have never engaged in bullying.

Sorry to burst the above poster's anonymous balloon, but by posting anonymously, he/she engaged in bullying, period.

More to the point, supply management has had a 40-year license to "attack" me at the grocery store and at auction sales - yet no member of the anonymous rabble seems to see anything wrong with supply management's ability to do just exactly that.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

When you had your auction sale this spring did you allow any one and every one to bid on your equipment ? Or did you limit it to non SM farmers only ?

The truth is that I had become fed-up with always trying to compete with the perpetually-deep pockets of supply management for land, both rented and owned, and was throwing in the towel.

The last straw was when one of my landlords sold her hilly and un-drained farm, almost literally before the "For Sale" sign went up, for the asking price of just over $11,500 per acre to a chicken farmer from ten miles away - all of which translates into a price/earnings multiple for this land of between 45 and 50 to 1 which, unless one has quota and/or believes runaway inflation is going to return, nuts.

When I started farming 40 years ago, I bought my first farm for ten times annual rent - if I was contemplating starting to farm now, and was facing price/earnings ratios of up to 50 times annual rent as an entry fee, I'd be very-much joining the ranks of today's "lost-generation" of farmers.

The impossible, quota-driven situation facing today's younger farmers is exactly why I am such a strong advocate on their behalf, and exactly why I detest the inherent smugness of the anonymous riff-raff on this site who, because of the luck of good timing, or a father with quota, never did, and/or never will face the quandry staring today's young farmers squarely in the face.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

You keep forgetting that the Valco real estate study claims both SM plus Intensive Livestock as the ones bidding up the price of land. The point you keep denying is that Intensive Livestock farms (Hog and Beef) are currently equally as guilty at bidding up land prices.

Editor: partial deletion to conform to our guidelines

SO you must be a sm farmer and did not get the land you were bidding for how does it feel now u got some competion but if you can wait tell beef ;hogs drop off you can get it then because your still protected to make to much to be unfair

Assuming a realistic NET profit of $300/acre, and the farmer pays themselves nothing, the example you have shown would take 38 years just to pay for the principle which is paid from after tax money, and I have not included any interest or the cost of drainage.

Raube Beuerman

Guess the answer to the How can they justify buying land at a high price , take all their land and if it is paid for like 500 acres and buy 150 acres for 1.5 millions dollars then divide it by 650 acres and you come up with $2,3076 per acres total which is not a bad price to increase your land holdings.

Bingo. Shhhshhh you figured it out.
It's called dollar cost averaging. The more land you have already paid for, the higher you can bid. That is why Intensive Livestock Farms are included in the Valco real estate study as equally as guilty as SM at bidding up the price of land. Have a nearby Intensive Livestock Farm (Farrow to Finish) who already has approx. 1400ac. in his operation with most paid for. This past year he added 200 ac at over $3 million and it needs systematic drainage.

Not unlike averaging in the stock market I guess. You buy shares that decline in value and then you buy more at the new and lower value. Your average cost is therefore lower.
If land prices drop as some expect smart investors will try to buy more. Then wouldn't this slow the expected drop in land values?

This technique is used in investing so that more shares are purchased when prices are low and less when prices are high.

The financial illiterate who wrote the post "shuushhh!" is exactly the reason why bank shares continue to perform so well, and will for years to come, if not forever.

Raube Beuerman

Do you realise you just suggested the (Farrow to Finish) farmer in the above post is a financial illiterate?The previous post suggests he is most likely one of the ones listed in the Valco study.

That's exactly how the business works and how progressive, aggressive farmers with strong business acumen and an enterprise-wide view of costs and real world economics can outbid those that think in a smaller and shallower view. This is true in all farm sectors.

A self-financing model of asset acquisition will, by mathematical definition, never be able to compete with an enterprise-financing model of asset acquisition.

Given their business assumptions, the second group does their math that tells them they cannot compete for assets and the enterprise group does their math and sees that they can  pay off the assets on a sound business basis. Banks understand the business case and they agree.

The enterprise group grow and pull away and the others fall behind with some of them bitterly blaming their inability to compete with the enterprise groups' luck of good timing, or a father with quota etc. Anything except seeing the real reason they can't compete - their chosen business model. 

SM-fixated haters can't see that exactly the same thing is happening within the dairy and poultry farm groups. The same thing happens inside these sectors, and always has, which is why one group always thinks quota and assets are overpriced (and by their business approach, they are overpriced) and they choose to stagnate and exit. The enterprise group thinks quota and assets are affordable and they choose to grow (and by their different business model, they are affordable) and they prosper into the future. 

By some people's definition, this one group of SM farmers is "bullying" the other group of SM farmers. In reality, each group is making economically- rational decisions based on their own personal business views (or lack thereof).

Hope this helps advance a positive discussion - but I won't hold my breath.

....not about how much land you own or how big you are.

Most farmers today are making purchases of land based upon what it has appreciated in the past, and expect the same appreciation in the next 20-30 years. That is not investing, that is speculating.

I could care less if a farmer has 1000 acres mortgage free and adds 100 acres, that does not automatically make it a sound investment.

If for example, that same farmer purchased the same amount in all of the big banks, a pipeline, a railroad there is far less risk because the share appreciation is more likely than land appreciation, and all the while he would be paid a yearly dividend which would make him more than the equivalent yearly net profit on land, without any work at all.

One thing to remember is that a portfolio cannot be 'seen' if you will, where the purchase of a farm can, and human nature being what it is.....

Raube Beuerman

Raube spent so much energy trying to prove his own point that he didn't take the time to understand the point in the post at all. Or maybe he's unwilling or unable to acknowledge the separate, valid issue being discussed.

The price that an enterprise model will be able to pay will always be seen as speculative by those without that same business vision.

A business "vision" is all about making money, therefore deploying dollars to the place where the best is return is, which is not in land worth over $11,000/acre, makes sense.

Raube Beuerman

Real business decisions are based on marginal costs and revenues. You invest in stocks and have a fairly simple potential return. That is how you are thinking.

Acquiring additional land will have marginal cost implications that will be different on every farm depending on use of existing equipment and labour. Depending on your costs and profitability you may be able to say that land at $11,000 would not make sense, and I think you are correct, but it might be a rational business decision for others. In fact, by definition, it is happening around us all time.

In 1992, the average farm in my area would have sold for $250,000.00 Now the average farm in this area would bring about 1.5 million(100acres).

If in 1992 someone parked $250,000.00 in BMO, the worst performer of the Canadian banks, they would now have $3,389,000.00

If they had chosen the best performing Canadian bank, they would be just shy of 6 million.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Raube Beuerman

Easy to pluck historic stock valuations. So what?

Some would have made more, some would have lost everything. Hindsight is 20-20.

Completely irrelevant to previous the post's points about marginal cost and revenue in making business decisions.

The same land can be worth more to some buyers than others.

That was the point and it is true.

What good does it do to talk about it . Did you do it ? and what do you have now ? Things look pretty simple on paper or when some one tells you how it could of been .

Does that mean I could have 3.4 million to 6 million now and I could buy 4 to 5 hundred acres to farm?
Maybe I should have borrowed a quarter of a million back then and went to work in the city so I could buy land now to enjoy.
Like the land to enjoy not to become a millionaire , money cannot replace the joy of the outdoor experience .

you only compared the accumulated net value. What about the income from working that asset. you can't plant corn on a bank certificate It wont keep the rain of your head. you can't walk it at sunset. just saying.

I have to agree with Raube's comment that "if a farmer has 1000 acres mortgage free and adds 100 acres, that does not automatically make it a sound investment. " If the farmer needs to do dollar cost averaging to bring the cost down that means the marginal (or new) revenue doesn't cover the marginal expenses of the new purchase.

In this case the farmer would have been better to purchase the same amount of stock in all of the big banks, a pipeline, a railroad there is far less risk because the share appreciation is more likely than land appreciation, and all the while he would be paid a yearly dividend which would make him more than the equivalent yearly net profit on land, without any work at all.

Although right now the land appreciation might outstrip the share appreciation the share appreciation is based on a proven and almost limitlessness ability for banks to make more money every year vrs farmland that has already been argued in this series of comments is only affordable if dollar cost averaged against cheaper land. The risk that bank stocks are not going to produce income in Canada is pretty small (anybody see there bank service charges going down). The risk that a soybean farmer in midwestern Ontario is not going to have revenue off his field is much higher especially this year, when I have snow on the ground (Nov 1 2014) and very few beans harvested.

John Gillespie
Ripley

That brings us to the interesting question of whether, given the high risks in some commodities, farming in those sectors is in fact a sound business or a lifestyle choice?

If you have the equipment and time to do more why not buy it.
The money you spend on the land now will be worth that or more, I cannot see land prices sinking to low values.
Invest in a company and watch it disappear or stocks, land is always in demand and you get to enjoy it not just having a piece of paperto store in a drawer.

The enterprise approach is not dependent on future price expectations for success. This approach is based on income not speculation.

It is also not the same as the dollar cost averaging - an approach which is usually spurned completely by speculators and only has any real use inside a long-horizon pension investment environment.

I can't believe that this anonymous poster suggests that posts on this forum be focused on ideas. This seems like bullying, doesn't it?

I really can't see any difference . Most but not all posts that are not signed are worth reading . Most that are signed more times than not are not worth the cyberspace they are taking up .
In both case's , both know how to write , use a computor . Most that are not signed seem to be able to think for them selves unlike some signed ones .
I did not know that it was a test and you must sign your name to get the credit for the mark achieved .
Most signed posts are demeaning , belittling and just plain rude . To be proud of such is nothing more than hypocrisy at it's best . And to think that it all comes from those who claim they are so highly educated . Sad really really sad .

The above posting contains yet another anonymous opinion which, because it is unidentifiable, is definitionally garbage - yet the poster, in keeping with the convoluted logic gripping the minds of all anonymous posters on this site, believes his/her electronic scribblings should be accorded full evidentiary merit.

Furthermore, the common denominator of all anonymous postings on this site is that the posters "can't see the forest for the trees" because, especially when it comes to supply management, rather than stick to the matter at hand, they fall all over themselves to castigate anybody who uses demonstrative language in an attempt to wake people up to the evils inherent in supply management.

It is indeed telling that since no anonymous poster has disputed, or even can dispute the factual evils of supply management, the only thing left for the anonymous riff-raff to do is to assassinate the character of the messenger, and/or the language used in the message itself.

In politics, in public relations, and in life itself, the best way to tell if you've made a "direct hit", or if you've "sunk somebody's battleship", is by the viciousness with which somebody you've exposed as a fraud tries to assassinate your character in return - and by that measure, given the outpouring of vitriol against me by the anonymous rabble on this site, my efforts to alert people to the evils of supply management are a resounding success.

In the same way that political attack ads work, even though they are always deplored by those on the receiving end of them, "attack ads" against supply management, while obviously deplored by those anonymous sods with quota to lose, also appear to be working exceedingly-well.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

1 Many comments here have thoughtfully politely and logically disputed the arguments you have made. To state otherwise as you do above is simply incorrect.

2 In the past few days you have self identified as a bully. You chose the words. I'm not saying this to demean or insult you it's just a fact and its something we all need to keep in mind during these discussions.

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

Import for Re-Export Program (IREP) milk was not new, never a secret, never had tariffs involved and had nothing whatsoever to do with the contract milk export system.

Editor: partial deletion in accordance with our guidelines

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.