The Courts have decided.

[Anonymous]

Tam:

And the word "could" means "an auxiliary with present or future sence, generally equivalent to can in meaning and use, expressing especially a shade of doubt or a small degree of ability or possibility( e.g. it could be so)" from Webster New World Dictionary. So it could happen but since you were importing far more with no exports I have a shade of doubt to your small degree of ability. Wink And If I have the same logic of SH and the NCBA and the USDA I guess they are the ones that could have information you don't so I guess I could live with that. Wink

Tam, I never said that the U.S. shouldn't import Canadian beef. I like Canada and its products. We don't have to have them, but we are better off having trade with Canada than not. So is Canada. My problem is not with Canadian trade, it is with the USDA shutting the border for BSE reasons and opening it after Tyson gobbled up another packer. Why did they really close it in the first place and is that reason still valid? The reason should never have been to put a Candadian firm on the skids so Tyson could buy another competitor and gain more market power. That is suspiciously what it looks like.

We DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM. Just what do you think your beef prices would be like if you cut your supply by 356,604.2 MT a year. That is the amount you imported from Canada alone in 2004. Would the average US consumer still be eating beef at the higher price this drop in supplies would cause? Or would you lose those consumers to your real competitors Chicken and Pork. Maybe then you could supply your demand Econo101. The Chicken and Pork industries may be a bit short of supplying theirs though. :wink: :roll:

Tam- nobody will starve- but producers could see fair and profitable prices for more than a one or two year period like we're seeing now with the closed border....As far as production goes, take a look at the counties just south of the border from you....How many thousand head of cattle could be ran on the CRP land in those counties if cattle prices were stabilized at a profit making price? Some of those fields stretch for 5-10 miles in each direction... In Montana alone there is almost 3.5 million acres of CRP land. Using 30 acres per animal unit (which is high on improved grazing), Montana alone could run about 120,000 head more of cattle if this land went back to production....There is over 35.5 million acres nationwide in CRP- some could run multiple cows an acre.....How many cattle could be ran on that amount of property?- How much feed product could be produced?

We don't need Canadas or any other countries beef- and if we didn't have the import beef flowing in maybe the cattle and grain industry would be profitable enough that the government wouldn't be out paying taxpayer dollars to take land out of production.....

 

[agman]

"Could raise" means you aren't now raising enough right Econo101?

Tam,

Your reasoning is close to SH's. Are you related? The U.S. could supply all of the beef for the U.S. Just because there were imports doesn't mean this statement is false. The U.S. could also supply all of the sugar it uses. Just because there are sugar imports does not mean that it couldn't. The U.S. could supply all of the steel it needs, all of the computer parts, etc... Just because I said "could" and it does not at the moment does not mean that it can't. That is SH logic, NCBA logic, and currently USDA logic. That is also part of the problem with the questions being asked currently in the farm forums.

I have a friend in Japan right now and he said he had one of the best gala apples he has ever seen (this retired farmer is from an apple growing state) but that it was $3.50. Some countries do not subscribe to the cheap food policy our agribusiness and food related industries have pushed in this country. When you get producer prices like we have today you get the secretary of agriculture having to ask his current farm forum questions:

1. How should farm policy be designed to maximize U.S. competitiveness and our country's ability to effectively compete in global markets?

2. How should farm policy address any unintended consequences and ensure that such consequences do not discourage new farmers and the next generation of farmers from entering production agriculture?

In answer to number two, the Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Louisiana said farmers had to be paid more. If you want more supply, then PAY MORE. That is the answer in a free economy, not subsidies. Subsidies that encourage oversupply only exacerbate the problem of price. If you want more supply, PAY YOUR PRODUCERS MORE, NOT LESS.

What is your solution?

The first question was one that assumes the world price of a commodity is a fair market price. The world price is full of dumped commodities and below cost production. Usually these are thinner markets. What do you think most of the arguments in WTO are about? All of the commodities I mentioned above have had "dumping" cases in the WTO.

Do you disagree?

The question is not whether the U.S could or could not produce enough beef for the domestic market. That is a mute point. The critical question is can it supply that beef at a price level that will clear the market and provide a profit to producers. The answer is no.

It is the ability to feed our cattle to much heavier weights in a shorter period of time that drives down the breakeven cost to our producers. As a result, we are the most efficient beef producers in the world. That process precludes the type of non-fed slaughter that is required to produce enough lean trim to absorb our massive surplus of 50/50 trim.

We could not compete on a grass fed basis with Australia, Argentina or Brazil. Let them produce the lean product. We will add value to our unprofitable lean product output by adding weight and the high quality beef product produced from our domestic cattle.

 

[Murgen]

We don't need Canadas or any other countries beef- and if we didn't have the import beef flowing in maybe the cattle and grain industry would be profitable enough that the government wouldn't be out paying taxpayer dollars to take land out of production.....

I thought they didn't subsidize in the US?

 

[Anonymous]

We don't need Canadas or any other countries beef- and if we didn't have the import beef flowing in maybe the cattle and grain industry would be profitable enough that the government wouldn't be out paying taxpayer dollars to take land out of production.....

I thought they didn't subsidize in the US?

About all CRP did was speed the decline and death of many small communities.......

 

[Tam]

Tam:

Tam, I never said that the U.S. shouldn't import Canadian beef. I like Canada and its products. We don't have to have them, but we are better off having trade with Canada than not. So is Canada. My problem is not with Canadian trade, it is with the USDA shutting the border for BSE reasons and opening it after Tyson gobbled up another packer. Why did they really close it in the first place and is that reason still valid? The reason should never have been to put a Candadian firm on the skids so Tyson could buy another competitor and gain more market power. That is suspiciously what it looks like.

We DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM. Just what do you think your beef prices would be like if you cut your supply by 356,604.2 MT a year. That is the amount you imported from Canada alone in 2004. Would the average US consumer still be eating beef at the higher price this drop in supplies would cause? Or would you lose those consumers to your real competitors Chicken and Pork. Maybe then you could supply your demand Econo101. The Chicken and Pork industries may be a bit short of supplying theirs though. :wink: :roll:

Tam- nobody will starve- but producers could see fair and profitable prices for more than a one or two year period like we're seeing now with the closed border....As far as production goes, take a look at the counties just south of the border from you....How many thousand head of cattle could be ran on the CRP land in those counties if cattle prices were stabilized at a profit making price? Some of those fields stretch for 5-10 miles in each direction... In Montana alone there is almost 3.5 million acres of CRP land. Using 30 acres per animal unit (which is high on improved grazing), Montana alone could run about 120,000 head more of cattle if this land went back to production....There is over 35.5 million acres nationwide in CRP- some could run multiple cows an acre.....How many cattle could be ran on that amount of property?- How much feed product could be produced?

We don't need Canadas or any other countries beef- and if we didn't have the import beef flowing in maybe the cattle and grain industry would be profitable enough that the government wouldn't be out paying taxpayer dollars to take land out of production.....

Oldtimer you can talk all you want about the CRP and the amount of cattle you could produce but you aren't producing it and the increase in your supply will be needed as soon as your shut down your imports. Which by the way you can't do and still belong to the WTO.
We both know you can't increase your cow herd fast enough and still supply beef to your domestic markets. Even if you held every heifer they still won't be producing calves until next year and those calves would not be processed into beef until the following year. So that is a long two years of very very short supplies because you will be trying to supply your domestic needs with only the steers. If you have a short supply of beef for over two years do you think the consumer will still be eating beef when that shortage will cause a drastic increase in price? And you may be right about no one will starve they will just eat chicken and pork.

Oh you say "profitable prices for more than a one or two year period like we're seeing now with the closed border" first of all the border isn't closed now, R-CALF lost on Appeal. I saw 4 trucks cross the border today. :wink: Second you were still taking BEEF for all of that time or did you forget about the figures I posted about your beef imports. For the short time you weren't taking beef from us you were taking it from others and after the border reopenned to Canadian UTM Beef you took record amounts. So I ask Oldtimer did importing record amount of beef hurt your profitable price you brag about? Or did it just keep the price of your beef in the counter down so the average consumer could still afford to eat it?

 

[Tam]

We don't need Canadas or any other countries beef- and if we didn't have the import beef flowing in maybe the cattle and grain industry would be profitable enough that the government wouldn't be out paying taxpayer dollars to take land out of production.....

I thought they didn't subsidize in the US?

About all CRP did was speed the decline and death of many small communities.......

This may be the only thing we agree on Oldtimer.
BUT, In your other post you asked just how many cattle could be produced on that land if it was productive again. You make it sound as if that land is just sitting there not being used. Did you forget I have brothers ranching in Montana and I happen to know they and other cut CRP for a source of winter feed. So just how many more cattle it could produce could be questionable. :wink:

 

[Econ101]

Econo101 put all the coulds aside. If Japan was to open your export market to them tomorrow can the US cattle industry supply that market with beef without importing beef or shorting the domestic market of beef?
Yes you can or No you could not?

Of course. The U. S. could also provide for ALL of the beef needs of Canada in addition. Free markets and price determination in them is a function of supply and demand. Over time that equilibrium is always sought--- and found. "Shorting" the domestic market is is an opinion.

Fair trade is in the interest of all in the world. Free trade may not be.

Consumption of beef may not be as high but beef producers should not look to increased consumption as a sole means to increased profitability. Markets must find their equilibrium for efficiency to be gained.

 

[Murgen]

That land might produce more, but by the time they get around to it, oops, another cycle has passed.

Long cyle, no co-ordination, ranchers taking advantage of other ranchers. ( hey what did you get, ha ha, I got more) Must be Captive supplies and the packers fault.

Maybe work as a group, and you might get er done, until then, stop bitching, about selling as individuals on an "average" scale!

Produce a like product, market it as such, and show the packers the "produers" have the power.

Selling calves in groups of 200-500 doesn't cut it, demand a price for a statewide volume of 20,000 calves of consistent quality.

The salesbarns won't like you for 'contracting" but your pocketbooks will!

And not just cause they are black!

 

[Econ101]

That land might produce more, but by the time they get around to it, oops, another cycle has passed.

Long cyle, no co-ordination, ranchers taking advantage of other ranchers. ( hey what did you get, ha ha, I got more) Must be Captive supplies and the packers fault.

Maybe work as a group, and you might get er done, until then, stop bitching, about selling as individuals on an "average" scale!

Produce a like product, market it as such, and show the packers the "produers" have the power.

Selling calves in groups of 200-500 doesn't cut it, demand a price for a statewide volume of 20,000 calves of consistent quality.

The salesbarns won't like you for 'contracting" but your pocketbooks will!

And not just cause they are black!

Murgen,

Are you saying that market power for sellers is the answer for market power of buyers?

 

[Econ101]

"Could raise" means you aren't now raising enough right Econo101?

Tam,

Your reasoning is close to SH's. Are you related? The U.S. could supply all of the beef for the U.S. Just because there were imports doesn't mean this statement is false. The U.S. could also supply all of the sugar it uses. Just because there are sugar imports does not mean that it couldn't. The U.S. could supply all of the steel it needs, all of the computer parts, etc... Just because I said "could" and it does not at the moment does not mean that it can't. That is SH logic, NCBA logic, and currently USDA logic. That is also part of the problem with the questions being asked currently in the farm forums.

I have a friend in Japan right now and he said he had one of the best gala apples he has ever seen (this retired farmer is from an apple growing state) but that it was $3.50. Some countries do not subscribe to the cheap food policy our agribusiness and food related industries have pushed in this country. When you get producer prices like we have today you get the secretary of agriculture having to ask his current farm forum questions:

1. How should farm policy be designed to maximize U.S. competitiveness and our country's ability to effectively compete in global markets?

2. How should farm policy address any unintended consequences and ensure that such consequences do not discourage new farmers and the next generation of farmers from entering production agriculture?

In answer to number two, the Secretary of Agriculture for the state of Louisiana said farmers had to be paid more. If you want more supply, then PAY MORE. That is the answer in a free economy, not subsidies. Subsidies that encourage oversupply only exacerbate the problem of price. If you want more supply, PAY YOUR PRODUCERS MORE, NOT LESS.

What is your solution?

The first question was one that assumes the world price of a commodity is a fair market price. The world price is full of dumped commodities and below cost production. Usually these are thinner markets. What do you think most of the arguments in WTO are about? All of the commodities I mentioned above have had "dumping" cases in the WTO.

Do you disagree?

The question is not whether the U.S could or could not produce enough beef for the domestic market. That is a mute point. The critical question is can it supply that beef at a price level that will clear the market and provide a profit to producers. The answer is no.

It is the ability to feed our cattle to much heavier weights in a shorter period of time that drives down the breakeven cost to our producers. As a result, we are the most efficient beef producers in the world. That process precludes the type of non-fed slaughter that is required to produce enough lean trim to absorb our massive surplus of 50/50 trim.

We could not compete on a grass fed basis with Australia, Argentina or Brazil. Let them produce the lean product. We will add value to our unprofitable lean product output by adding weight and the high quality beef product produced from our domestic cattle.

Agman, efficiency is a relative term as are all supply/demand equilibriums and free markets. Would we be as "efficient" by your definition if we did not have low grain prices? If we had high grain prices and shortened the feed period would we still be "efficient"? In free markets EVERYTHING is relative. Efficiency is a less useful term than the word profitable but the connotations of both words require context.

The question is not whether the U.S could or could not produce enough beef for the domestic market. That is a mute point. The critical question is can it supply that beef at a price level that will clear the market and provide a profit to producers. The answer is no.

If it is no, and you are a free trader, then you should not produce beef given this scenario. You are losing money and someone else can produce what your economy wants cheaper. Is this the question we should be asking?

 

[Tam]

Econo101 put all the coulds aside. If Japan was to open your export market to them tomorrow can the US cattle industry supply that market with beef without importing beef or shorting the domestic market of beef?
Yes you can or No you could not?

Of course. Free markets and price determination in them is a function of supply and demand. Over time that equilibrium is always sought--- and found. "Shorting" the domestic market is is an opinion.

Fair trade is in the interest of all in the world. Free trade may not be.

So US beef goes to the highest bidder and to hell will the future beef eaters of America if their parents can't aford to treat them to beef while you get your supplies up to cover both domestic and export markets at a price people can afford. At what price do you think the US consumers will be saying no thank you I'll buy Pork? And how much Beef do you think you will be selling to export markets when they can buy beef from other countries that aren't trying to single handedly supply the world with a source that can't even cover their own domestic needs without raising the price so high nobody can afford to buy it? Remember there are countries like Canada that can supply beef at a reasonable price to both their domestic and export markets and not short either.

Over time that equilibrium is always sought

Sure if people stop demanding US beef in their diet because it cost to much, sooner or later you will equal out the supply with the depressed demand but at what cost?

 

[Murgen]

Econ101, would you consider it market power if producers fininally joined together as a marketing power and marketed their calves as a group, instead of marketing them as an "average group" of small units, as taking away power from the ones that use this against producers?

Yes, that's what I am proposing! Damn, it's been proposed many times, is anybody listening?

And you're going to say it won't work, then what is your solution? I would say, take back the power, stop griping about the way it works today and change your direction!

"If you continue what you're doing, you'll get the same results"

Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members.

They would have joined the trend of "value added", while continuing to put us Canadian producers on our toes. They could have set a trend for food safety, a concern that is very important to them!

 

[Econ101]

Econ101, would you consider it market power if producers fininally joined together as a marketing power and marketed their calves as a group, instead of marketing them as an "average group" of small units, as taking away power from the ones that use this against producers?

Yes, that's what I am proposing! Damn, it's been proposed many times, is anybody listening?

And you're going to say it won't work, then what is your solution? I would say, take back the power, stop griping about the way it works today and change your direction!

"If you continue what you're doing, you'll get the same results"

Hey, I am an advocate of equal bargaining power as you must know by now. Everyone should get their piece of the economy. If equal bargaining power can not be obtained through what you advocate then fairness must be sought. That was the thought behind the PSA:

Section 202. Unlawful Practices enumerated.
It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect; or
(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or


Breaking those economic laws only distorts the markets and allows the packers to take all of the producer surplus. In other words, it allows all of the profitability to be squeezed out by the packers through their use of market power. It is the economic reality.

 

[Murgen]

If it is no, and you are a free trader, then you should not produce beef given this scenario. You are losing money and someone else can produce what your economy wants cheaper. Is this the question we should be asking?

Maybe we should be asking this question? If our land would be better used to produce something else, of higher value, then maybe we should let others produce beef!

Is this not what you profess as a "free market"?

 

[Murgen]

Hey, I am an advocate of equal bargaining power as you must know by now. Everyone should get their piece of the economy. If equal bargaining power can not be obtained through what you advocate then fairness must be sought. That was the thought behind the PSA:

Section 202. Unlawful Practices enumerated.
It shall be unlawful for any packer or swine contractor with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or
(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect; or
(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or


Breaking those economic laws only distorts the markets and allows the packers to take all of the producer surplus. In other words, it allows all of the profitability to be squeezed out by the packers through their use of market power. It is the economic reality.

Man. must have got your hair up, you were awfully quick to reply!

 

[Murgen]

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

So if I'm a rancher with 3000 calves, would it restrain commerce in a certain market, if I was to sell those calves to a specified buyer, because those calves are all considered "lean"?

That seller is getting paid a premium for those lean calves! The local guys are being paid less at the salesbarn, cause they didn't "market" their calves. Who's at fault, the buyer or the seller?

Help me understand? If a producer takes advantage, is he exempt? But the buyer guilty?

 

[Sandhusker]

Murgen, "Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members."

The way I see it, Murgen, you have exihibited a micro problem. If we don't get the macro problems of agency capture, legislating from the bench, etc... taken care of, the rest simply won't matter.

 

[Econ101]

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer, swine contractor, or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

So if I'm a rancher with 3000 calves, would it restrain commerce in a certain market, if I was to sell those calves to a specified buyer, because those calves are all considered "lean"?

That seller is getting paid a premium for those lean calves! The local guys are being paid less at the salesbarn, cause they didn't "market" their calves. Who's at fault, the buyer or the seller?

Help me understand? If a producer takes advantage, is he exempt? But the buyer guilty?

In commodity type markets (which cattle, hogs, and poultry certainly are) there is a historical tendency for buyers to try to corner the market in some way and then set the prices according to the monopsonist pricing strategy. The beef case has a twist on that tendency with the markets in the substitutes already cornered. The PSA does not have set levels of market concentration, they have rules for the game to make markets work for society's interests. These rules are based on economic concepts I have described before in another post.

In your scenario as I understand it, there is no problem with that particular marketing strategy. No one is at fault. The PSA is not meant to frustrate innovation or efficiency, it is meant to prevent market power from influencing price instead of normal supply/demand price signals. If there was sufficient market power for a buyer to influence the price paid at the auction barn and the prices set in those auctions set the price of the contract instead of it being negotiated, there could be a violation.

The Robinson-Patman Act does have some provisions of buyers giving different prices to "preferred" sellers of volume in an attempt to use market power to influence prices instead of supply/demand. The Robinson-Patman Act and the PSA (as shown by the appellate court) and the economic reasoning behind those acts is little understood by the judicial process set up for justice. With less understanding of these issues by the courts, we will continue to have more concentrated industries that try to construct barriers to entry and frustrate competition. That leads to an aristocracy of a few and a "Mexicanization" of our economy. It is not good for anyone in the long run.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten can rattle on and on and on about market manipulation but until he provides the proof that it actually occurred, he is left with creating the illusion that it occurred.

Sandman: "Murgen, "Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members."

Hahaha!

Ask Mike Callicrate, he's been there, done that!

Can you say, "CONSUMER APATHY"???

When are you going to back your allegation that I lied?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten can rattle on and on and on about market manipulation but until he provides the proof that it actually occurred, he is left with creating the illusion that it occurred.

Sandman: "Murgen, "Just imagine what have been acomlished if RCALF would have put all their legal fees into starting a "USA Branded Beef" program for their members."

Hahaha!

Ask Mike Callicrate, he's been there, done that!

Can you say, "CONSUMER APATHY"???

When are you going to back your allegation that I lied?



~SH~

SH, I was not an attorney on the Pickett case nor was involved in it. I did not have to prove that case and I don't have to prove anything to you. The jury were the ones to be convinced of proof, not you. You would not have been qualified to sit on that jury but I might have been since I did not have any involvement in those issues at the time. I merely point out the many fallacies in logic and economic sense that you make to sound like you know what you are talking about. When are you going to realize that your juvinile behavior of name calling and ranting is just that?

Atkins did more for the beef industry than the checkoff ever did and it didn't take a tax on producers. Let the people selling beef pay for their own advertising. Laura does it and so do other niche marketers.