Canada-Europe free trade agreement could be final in 6 months

[Oncle Boris]

That's so cute, coming from someone who has never done better than to post the Laffer curve in economic discussions.

The world is not a macroeconomics manual.

[Tupac Shakur]

I guess that's good for you, as you clearly don't understand basic macroeconomics.

Seriously, how ****ing stupid must you be if NYE is schooling you in a econ debate?

[Oncle Boris]

"If you liberalize markets, prices will go down."

OMG I've been schooled!!!

[Tupac Shakur]

Exactly. Don't you see how sad it is to get schooled on something so basic?

[Oncle Boris]

Don't you see how sad it is to get schooled on something so basic as an externality?

[Tupac Shakur]

1. I haven't been schooled in this thread.

2. I don't think you know what "externality" means.

[Kuciwalker]

The thing is that farming is highly volatile; you're better off with stable prices, even if they average higher.

No, you aren't.

[Oncle Boris]

Yeah, just like you never realized that buying local actually helps, or that there was a difference between KFC and organic chicken.

[Kuciwalker]

If farmers need price stability they can trade futures. This is precisely the problem that speculators exist to solve.

[Oncle Boris]

No, you aren't.

Yes you are, you freaking morons.

You keep reading manuals and you never ask yourself what happens when small producers are driven out of the market. Replacing family farms with large exploitations doesn't help.

[Tupac Shakur]

Yes you are, you freaking morons.

[Oncle Boris]

If farmers need price stability they can trade futures. This is precisely the problem that speculators exist to solve.

I know.

1) This is not true in the developing world (admittedly we're speaking of Canada here, just pointing this out).
2) Futures do not guarantee profitability, supply management pretty much does.

[Oncle Boris]

Let me guess: Drake has posted "you are such a ****ing tard "

He's on my ignore, I only occasionally click his posts.

[Wezil]

Whether it works or not is only a side issue as this governemnt rarely acts based on evidence.

"Will Harper scrap the system to get the trade deals?" is the bigger question.

[Tupac Shakur]

Let me guess: Drake has posted "you are such a ****ing tard "

Close. The "you are such a ****ing tard" was implicit.

He's on my ignore, I only occasionally click his posts.

Your loss. You might not be so stupid if you actually listened to your intellectual betters.

[gribbler]

I understand.

The thing is that farming is highly volatile; you're better off with stable prices, even if they average higher. You know that despite these quotas, most dairy farmers are struggling?

Look at what happens to developing countries when the price of corn rises.

In developing countries, people spend a significantly larger portion of their income on food and there are many people who can barely afford to eat enough before the price increase. I don't see it as something governments in developed countries really need to worry about.

Also, it's not really surprising if some farmers are struggling with a permit system in place. The farmers who receive free permits when the system is implemented are less likely to be forced out of business, but anyone who enters has to borrow much more money to get started because the permits effectively double the capital costs of starting a dairy farm.

[Oncle Boris]

Whether it works or not is only a side issue as this governemnt rarely acts based on evidence.

"Will Harper scrap the system to get the trade deals?" is the bigger question.

If we got the deal with the US anyway, we could get it with Europe, no?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes you are, you freaking morons.

You keep reading manuals and you never ask yourself what happens when small producers are driven out of the market. Replacing family farms with large exploitations doesn't help.

Let me guess, your story goes:

1. We allow price flexibility.

2. The large producers are more efficient than the small producers and can set lower prices. In addition, they have deeper pockets and can afford to underprice even more.

3. All the small producers go broke and sell to the large producers.

4. All the large producers jack up prices and reap huge profits.

The problem is that your story is **** and doesn't actually work. Private monopolies achieved purely through market power are incredibly rare - almost all monopolies and quasi-monpolies are deliberate creations of the government - and food is a global market. Your villainous Big Farm can't just do this in Canada, it needs to do this to the entire world or price competition from foreign farms destroys it.

[Wezil]

If we got the deal with the US anyway, we could get it with Europe, no?

Not from what I've been reading. It looks like supply management goes or we stay on the outside of these trading blocs.

I get the impression the NDP in Quebec would probably carry the banner in opposition to this but I'm not sure the C's even care anymore. They haven't much left to lose there anymore and behave like Liberals with Alberta - i.e. They don't even try.

I'm not really sure how it would play out in Ontario. No doubt the NDP would carry the banner here as well but (like most NDP causes here) I don't think the public at large would be with them.

In short, they won't care about dissent in Quebec and Ontario won't care if the boards are gotten rid of. I see no political reason why Harper won't give on this issue to gain more trade treaties (he has been collecting them you know ).

[Kuciwalker]

Not to mention government price support does almost nothing to "protect" small farmers. The driving force behind consolidation isn't that all the small farmers go out of business, it's that the property the small farmers own (land) is more valuable in the hands of the big agricultural corporations than it is in the hands of the small farmer. The corporation can buy the land off of the farmer and leave them both better off. Given that, they will eventually both recognize this fact and make the deal.

[Oncle Boris]

In developing countries, people spend a significantly larger portion of their income on food and there are many people who can barely afford to eat enough before the price increase. I don't see it as something governments in developed countries really need to worry about.

Also, it's not really surprising if some farmers are struggling with a permit system in place. The farmers who receive free permits when the system is implemented are less likely to be forced out of business, but anyone who enters has to borrow much more money to get started because the permits effectively double the capital costs of starting a dairy farm.

1) As opposed to a system where everything gets replaced by large exploitations?

2) Also my example wrt to third world was mostly meant in inverse, i.e. what happens to buyers there is what happens to producers here.

3) I am not an expert on the topic, and I don't have a scientific sample. But I clearly recall reports about farmers who had inherited the quota and were getting out of the business.

[Oncle Boris]

Let me guess, your story goes:

1. We allow price flexibility.

2. The large producers are more efficient than the small producers and can set lower prices. In addition, they have deeper pockets and can afford to underprice even more.

3. All the small producers go broke and sell to the large producers.

4. All the large producers jack up prices and reap huge profits.

The problem is that your story is **** and doesn't actually work. Private monopolies achieved purely through market power are incredibly rare - almost all monopolies and quasi-monpolies are deliberate creations of the government - and food is a global market. Your villainous Big Farm can't just do this in Canada, it needs to do this to the entire world or price competition from foreign farms destroys it.

IIUC the dairy market is already an oligopoly.

[Oncle Boris]

It does make sense to me that you would control the supply of a highly perishable commodity, whose demand is relatively inelastic, whose prices surge and plunge wildly, and whose production is seasonally constant.

Not only this, but I consider food independence a valid issue of national security.

[Oncle Boris]

Not from what I've been reading. It looks like supply management goes or we stay on the outside of these trading blocs.

I get the impression the NDP in Quebec would probably carry the banner in opposition to this but I'm not sure the C's even care anymore. They haven't much left to lose there anymore and behave like Liberals with Alberta - i.e. They don't even try.

I'm not really sure how it would play out in Ontario. No doubt the NDP would carry the banner here as well but (like most NDP causes here) I don't think the public at large would be with them.

In short, they won't care about dissent in Quebec and Ontario won't care if the boards are gotten rid of. I see no political reason why Harper won't give on this issue to gain more trade treaties (he has been collecting them you know ).

I expect Harper will do it too, and that the uproar in Quebec will result in yet another round of Quebec bashing.

[Wezil]

Perhaps it will be a Quebec bash. A lot would depend on McGuinty's position which is anyone's guess.

[regexcellent]

It does make sense to me that you would control the supply of a highly perishable commodity, whose demand is relatively inelastic, whose prices surge and plunge wildly, and whose production is seasonally constant.

Not only this, but I consider food independence a valid issue of national security.

Canada's food independence is not and never will be at stake no matter how many tariffs are abolished. Food independence as a concept does not mean independence of supply for every conceivable product. America and Canada practically feed the planet so neither country is at any grave risk.

[notyoueither]

What this suggests is that quotas have protected family farms... that would be an average of 60 cows per farm.

Actually, between 1980 and 2004 the number of dairy farms declined from 56K to 17K. 70 percent of the farms disappeared as the industry concentrates in ever larger hands. The average number of cows per farm has doubled.

page 17
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod...iryprofile.pdf

This suggests that family farms have not been protected by the policy of supply management.

[notyoueither]

It does make sense to me that you would control the supply of a highly perishable commodity, whose demand is relatively inelastic, whose prices surge and plunge wildly, and whose production is seasonally constant.

Not only this, but I consider food independence a valid issue of national security.

Why dairy and poultry, but not grains, vegetables, beef, fish, etc?

[Ben Kenobi]

food independence a valid issue of national security.

Food independence in dairy from Quebec? Indeed. Getting Quebec out of the dairy business altogether will be beneficial to Canada as a whole.

[Ben Kenobi]

Protect rural areas Quebec from what?

Halving the cost of cheese is a much larger net benefit to rural areas.