tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post3684042671003629231..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Sunday Snippets - lessons from the Murray Goulburn affair Jim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-57583608249133303842016-09-12T19:16:37.304+10:002016-09-12T19:16:37.304+10:00That does seem to be the case, 2t. That does seem to be the case, 2t. Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-41638128031697859242016-09-12T18:04:15.472+10:002016-09-12T18:04:15.472+10:00Nailed it, Jim. There are things to be said for an...Nailed it, Jim. There are things to be said for and against co-ops, by people with much more familiarity and/or economic expertise than myself, but they all start from the position that the co-op is intended to affect the market in such a way to benefit the members. People can then blather on about market distortions and anti-competitive behaviours (quite often with justification) but a farming co-op which distorts *its own market share* against the interests of its growers has lost the plot.<br /><br />In 10 years in agriculture, I far more usually saw one segment of growers doing better than another and an intra-industry war about whether some people ought to be allowed to bail from marketing arrangements (often legal monopolies). In this case it appears that some have done worse than others, but just about no grower has benefited. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen a single grower leap to the defence of the co-op's performance.<br /><br />You can't feel happy witnessing such a thing.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.com