Econ101 said:agman said:Econ101 said:And of that 9% can you break down which packers benefitted as a percent?
Since you asked the question why don't you provide some answers for a change?
Just a little help to get you started. Creekstone has stated they derived thirty-five percent of their revenue from exports. How do you think any of the majors would rate against that figure?!!! Give it to us conspiracy theorist. I want to watch you do the Econ shuffle again.
I did not think you could, Agman. It is important that you actually know a little about international trade before you discuss it.
Cargill has scored big in the comparative game of political bse. They have shut Tyson out of Japan and can supply that market with their australian operations. Unfortunately Creekstone and other competitors were shut out also. That does not help out domestic producers in the U.S. Please don't quote the piddly Canadian production coming out of Canada and going to Japan. The bse issue does bring out some interesting points to your ridiculous free trade agreements which I will address in the next post.
And SH, that discussion is for the adults, not you and your moranic posts.
Another post from Econ based upon phony assumptions and no facts - what else is new Econ? What factual evidence do you that Cargill is not engaged in reopening Japanese markets to U.S. beef trade? Facts only, you can keep your other BS to yourself.