
Canada's maple syrup 'rebels' - blowski
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35028380
======
mabbo
I won't argue that the Federation should exist, but I will argue that these
producers are idiots for wanting it to stop existing. It's giving them their
livelihood.

Maple Syrup prices continue to rise year after year (addicts like myself will
tell you all about it). Supply is highly variable- some years the weather just
doesn't work well, and there's little produced, other years there's an
abundance. The Federation's cartel powers and large reserve mean that they set
syrup prices (increasing, always) and they make supply constant. They also
market it, increasing demand.

As an individual producer, the lack of the Federation is problematic: have a
bad year, and you have nothing to sell; have a good year, well, so does
everyone else- so now the price of syrup is rock-bottom, and you make very
little profit, unless you decide to store it yourself and wait for a bad year.

Demand can also drop with supply variability. What company would start
depending on pure maple syrup, knowing that next year it's price may double?

These guys want to have the prices that only exist because of the Federation's
cartel powers, but refuse to follow the their rules. I have little sympathy.

~~~
iolothebard
Yeah, god forbid they should be able to do what they want with their own
property.

Morons, who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for the privilege of someone
doing price fixing for you.

~~~
mabbo
Don't misunderstand me, I agree with you- I think it's a bit oppressive that
laws like this exist.

But I can't understand why, now that it exists and these producers are making
so much more money from it, they'd want to dismantle it.

Edit a moment later: in regard to "who wouldn't like giving away 12%/pound for
the privilege of someone doing price fixing for you.".

A: Someone who gets 13% (or 113%) more because of the price fixing.

~~~
iolothebard
Sounds like the mafia. Except jail instead of being maimed/killed.

------
blowski
Favourite quote:

> He says: "People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see
> what happens in China, North Korea, or Africa."

i.e. If you compare us to to North Korea, then we look good.

------
SeanDav
This is the problem with rules, laws and organizations created during, or as a
result of, a crisis. There really should be an expiry date, or review system
for when circumstances change, but there never is. So we end up with the Maple
Syrup Mafia in the case of a maple syrup crisis and we end up with an
increasingly restricted internet and increasingly reduced privacy because of
terrorism fears.

------
maxki
The seasonal production volume of maple syrup is very sensitive to temperature
patterns. One year you have a huge production and the next few years almost
nothing, and it's not about efficiency, only about freezing/defreezing
patterns. In such a "market", where the production side is practically random,
it will cycle from boom to bust forever. I don't see other solutions than a
cartel to solve this. What they do is accumulate surplus during "boom" years,
and release it during "bust" years, the offer becomes a smoother curve.
Without such a mechanism, no rational investor will invest beyond a "hobby"
scale production.

An investigation on how industries subject to "random like" production
variations can solve the price unpredicability problem would make a more
interesting article. Presenting it as an "evil cartel" story, is more
sensationalist and involves much less research for the journalist.

~~~
icebraining
As far as I know, the way the rest of the agriculture producers solve this is
with futures.

Cartels have some advantages, but they are often unstable, and so they have to
be enforced with threats of jail, as in this story, and which helps the
characterization as "evil".

~~~
slavik81
Unfortunately, this sort of cartel is not unusual in Canadian agriculture. I
have mixed feelings about Stephan Harper, but abolishing the Wheat Board and
pardoning protestors [1] was a definite achievement in my books.

[1] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-
arres...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-pardons-farmers-arrested-
under-old-wheat-board-law-1.1146436)

------
tomohawk
One other side effect of this mafia is that it is almost impossible to get any
grade of maple syrup other than dark amber seen on grocery store shelves.
There are actually many different grades of maple syrup, depending on when
syrup is extracted from the trees. The maple syrup mafia mixes all of the
different grades together as that's easier/better for them. If you ever get
the chance to try some of the other grades, its worth the treat.

------
rdlecler1
This is a system that doesn't tend toward Nash equilibrium. If everyone is
permitted to maximize their production then it floods the market, prices drop
and everyone loses. You could argue that you should let the strong survive.
Wipe out the higher cost producers and leave yourself with a factor syrup
producing industry.

Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this, but the vast
majority of products _chose_ otherwise. They put together a system that
benefits their interests. We do this all the time when we create laws.

Now you have a few free-riders who benefit from the higher prices created by
restricted supply, but who don't want to pay the cost. If the market was left
to it's own devices, they would probably be out of husiness altogether or they
would be running a factory sapping operation.

And let's be clear, unlike water, energy, syrup is a luxury good not an
essential commodity. The additional cost of inefficient production will be a
rounding error for most consumers.

~~~
aianus
> The additional cost of inefficient production will be a rounding error for
> most consumers.

You can say this about almost any single consumer good. If this crap is
allowed to proliferate, it would represent a material increase in the cost of
living.

> Yes you can (arbitrarily) value market efficiency over this

What's arbitrary about preferring low-cost syrup?

Monopolies are illegal for good reason, they unfairly enrich the monopolist at
the cost of the consumer.

~~~
rdlecler1
You're making a very strong value judgement that cheap goods and low cost
production trump tradition and the ability for people to make a living. I
simply don't accept your premise as a blanket statement.

------
dade_
Welcome to Quebec, the province intent on shooting itself in the head. Check
out their language laws if you really want to see totalitarian, it destroyed
their economy and has likely set them back forever. Beautiful place to visit,
just beware of falling concrete.

~~~
auxym
You know, "the economy" does not have to be this deity that you absolutely
have to sacrifice every aspect of culture, history, socializing, and every
part of living an enjoyable life to.

Québec still has the third highest GDP in the Canadian provinces [1]. Québec
lost a lot of manufacturing and automotive sector jobs in the last decade or
two. So has most of the western world. I don't think it has much to do with
the language.

As for the infrastructure, I'd posit that crappy infrastructure at high costs
is largely due to corrupt politicians (ever hear of another place where money
played too big a role in electoral campaigns?) and construction companies
being run by the mafia [2].

Which, of course, all are problems of their own, and in no way is Québec a
utopia. It's just a bit tiring to always hear the easy intellectual shortcuts
that blame everything on law 101.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product)
[2] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-
debate/editorials/the-c...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-
debate/editorials/the-charbonneau-lesson-public-contracts-are-always-a-
criminal-opportunity/article27484535/)

~~~
dsq
Uh huh, Quebec is enjoying it's 'culture' and nice laid back lifestyle at the
expense of the uncultured Anglaise as the highest recipient of equalization
payments: Quebec ($7.833 billion)

From wikipedia

~~~
sidarape
Do you even know of the equalization payments are calculated? Also, back 20
years ago and before, it was Québec that was paying the equalization payments
to Alberta and the western provinces.

~~~
hackbinary
I remember the news from 20 years ago, 1995, and my recollection is that
Quebec was a have not province back then.

I think Quebec has pretty much forever been a have not province.

[http://news.nationalpost.com/news/time-for-quebec-to-end-
equ...](http://news.nationalpost.com/news/time-for-quebec-to-end-equalization-
addiction-montreal-think-tank)

------
wtbob
> 'People who say that our practices are totalitarian should go see what
> happens in China, North Korea, or Africa.'

'We're not as bad as North Korea!' is hardly compelling.

Why not set up a system of maple syrup futures, rather than sending in police
and raiding people's homes?

~~~
binarymax
I wish, that every time I saw a quote like this in a news article, the
journalist would put a caption referencing the fallacy type.

------
eridal
When I first finished reading the post-capitalism article, I was feeling some
sort of hope. Now, after this, it's just emptiness.

Some time ago I read some metaphor a guy who build something that people
really wanted, and then came another man with clubs and took it from him,
build walls around it, and charged for it.

------
koenigdavidmj
This exists in the US too for a handful of products. Raisins are the ones I
remember (NPR's Planet Money did a story recently that is almost like this one
but about raisins).

------
alricb
One issue with the Federation is that cheating is really rampant, even among
its board members.

Part of the problem is that maple syrup harvesting is essentially a seasonal
activity, with quite a short season, so it's a side activity for almost all
producers, except the very largest ones; when they see high prices, they
really want to make the extra money, unlike dairy farmer who sell year-long.

------
max-a
This was absolutely hilarious, but how comes the federation has power over
people who don't want to have anything to do with it?

~~~
pzone
Because of its entrenched political power.

------
aianus
Can any Canadian lawyers shed some light on how this is legal?

~~~
wmil
The Quebec government passed laws enabling it in 1990. It was modelled after
the Canadian Wheat Board.

The relevant legislation is called "Loi sur la mise en marché des produits
agricoles, alimentaires et de la pêche" but it's all in french.

~~~
alricb
In English it's called "An Act Respecting the Marketing of Agricultural, Food
and Fish Products": [http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-
c-m-35.1/latest/c...](http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/laws/stat/cqlr-
c-m-35.1/latest/cqlr-c-m-35.1.html)

------
lisivka
I see no 'mafia' there. It is typical democracy.

~~~
sidarape
You're downvoted but you're right. There are laws that protect the federation.
If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished.

~~~
aianus
> If people really didn't want that, the laws would be abolished.

Not at all. 95% of people could be against the cartel and it would still be
law unless it was such a priority that it would actually change votes, which
is not going to happen for a small issue like this.

Similarly for laws like those preventing Tesla from opening retail stores in
some states. Pretty much nobody except dealerships and their families are for
those laws, but there's no incentive for a politician to change them since
they would lose donation money and hardly gain any votes.

