|
| Author |
Message |
hypocritexposer
Rancher
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 17414
Location: real world
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tex wrote: |
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.
Tex |
Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hypocritexposer wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.
Tex |
Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer. |
Yes, of course. That is why we have the prohibitions on meat packers from doing certain things. They can capture the value that producers have brought to the market with their market pricing and keep it for themselves or use it to consolidate the markets further, giving them more market power to do even worse things. Competition keeps them in check if there is any real competition. We have seen meat packers collude in their illegal activities, pay off politicians to get away with it, and hire the most connected law firms money can buy (filled with ex congressmen and officials who can game the system the best).
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Big Muddy rancher
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 15725
Location: Big Muddy valley
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tex wrote: |
| hypocritexposer wrote: |
| Tex wrote: |
Don't get like sh here. Meat packers (and retailers) want to increase the spread between what they pay you for cattle and what they get from the market. Sometimes they take actions that are specifically prohibited in the Packers and Stockyards Act to do it. Sometimes they don't. It all depends on the facts of what actually happened. These broad generalizations are pretty useless when it comes to the facts. Facts trump broad generalizations any day.
Tex |
Aren't you talking about a couple of different "markets"? In the situation you have described, the rancher does not have access to the market that includes the retailer. |
Yes, of course. That is why we have the prohibitions on meat packers from doing certain things. They can capture the value that producers have brought to the market with their market pricing and keep it for themselves or use it to consolidate the markets further, giving them more market power to do even worse things. Competition keeps them in check if there is any real competition. We have seen meat packers collude in their illegal activities, pay off politicians to get away with it, and hire the most connected law firms money can buy (filled with ex congressmen and officials who can game the system the best).
Tex |
If they are breaking the current laws what good does it do to make more laws/
Shouldn't the original ones just be enforced?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
nenmrancher
Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 418
Location: north eastern new mexico
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BMR, Thats what the more goverment will save me types like TEX dont get or dont want to focus on is that before making new rules they need to make sure the current ones are enforced and used.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nenmrancher wrote: |
| BMR, Thats what the more goverment will save me types like TEX dont get or dont want to focus on is that before making new rules they need to make sure the current ones are enforced and used. |
There is a long story on this, nemrancher, that you have no idea about.
You can find the details in the actual GIPSA proposed regulations that work to stop the federal courts when they ignore the plain language in the law and the Bush and Obama USDA briefs in the case.
I agree the problem is with not enforcing the rules already on the books. To fix that one, we have to take a few federal judges off the bench who are doing the ignoring and the dirty work in their decisions.
Of course this dirty work can be traced all the way back to the members of the Judiciary Committee in the United States who are allowing this to happen on their watch and getting paid to do it through the myriad of campaign donations.
The rules are meant to correct these errant judges and their decisions.
I personally think the judges should be fired for throwing cases but the big money is against that in serious ways.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben H
Rancher
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Location: Gorham, ME
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I still say the checkoff has no authority unless interstate commerce is involved.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben H wrote: |
| I still say the checkoff has no authority unless interstate commerce is involved. |
What do you mean by that, Ben?
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben H
Rancher
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Location: Gorham, ME
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Article I section VIII of the constitution, the commerce clause as well as the 10th amendment. If animals don't cross state lines like the Montana raised label ( or whatever they call it) it is intrastate commerce not interstate, therefore the federal law requiring the checkoff can't apply.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben H wrote: |
| Article I section VIII of the constitution, the commerce clause as well as the 10th amendment. If animals don't cross state lines like the Montana raised label ( or whatever they call it) it is intrastate commerce not interstate, therefore the federal law requiring the checkoff can't apply. |
\
I am very familiar with the Commerce Clause but I just wanted to know what you were saying.
You make a good point.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben H
Rancher
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Location: Gorham, ME
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Article I section VIII of the constitution, the commerce clause as well as the 10th amendment. If animals don't cross state lines like the Montana raised label ( or whatever they call it) it is intrastate commerce not interstate, therefore the federal law requiring the checkoff can't apply.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Tex
Rancher
Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 2172
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben H wrote: |
| Article I section VIII of the constitution, the commerce clause as well as the 10th amendment. If animals don't cross state lines like the Montana raised label ( or whatever they call it) it is intrastate commerce not interstate, therefore the federal law requiring the checkoff can't apply. |
You know, of course, that since it does benefit the meat packers, none of this matters. In the end, in Washington and in the courts, it is money and power that matters, not principles.
Tex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ben H
Rancher
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Location: Gorham, ME
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The only argument is Wickard v. Filburn, but that case was a terrible ruling and needs to challenged.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
