• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

And now for the rest of the story.................

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I posed a simple question on the basics on economics. Demand remaining constant, wouldn't less supply equal higher prices?

Possibly.

Under current situations, the end user in the food chain is reluctant/unable to buy expensive cuts. As we all know, we may not share in profits but we definately share in difficulties.

Can the US feed itself today? I'm not sure.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
gcreekrch said:
Sandhusker said:
I posed a simple question on the basics on economics. Demand remaining constant, wouldn't less supply equal higher prices?

Possibly.

Under current situations, the end user in the food chain is reluctant/unable to buy expensive cuts. As we all know, we may not share in profits but we definately share in difficulties.

Can the US feed itself today? I'm not sure.

While increasing supply would have the effect of pressuring prices to the benefit of consumers, that same price pressure chokes revenues to the producers. Thus, coming back full circle, while the trade imbalance with Canada may benefit US consumers, it hurt US producers, which logically explains the concern US producers may have with that imbalance. Simply put, it takes money out of their pockets.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
gcreekrch said:
Sandhusker said:
I posed a simple question on the basics on economics. Demand remaining constant, wouldn't less supply equal higher prices?

Possibly.

Under current situations, the end user in the food chain is reluctant/unable to buy expensive cuts. As we all know, we may not share in profits but we definately share in difficulties.

Can the US feed itself today? I'm not sure.

While increasing supply would have the effect of pressuring prices to the benefit of consumers, that same price pressure chokes revenues to the producers. Thus, coming back full circle, while the trade imbalance with Canada may benefit US consumers, it hurt US producers, which logically explains the concern US producers may have with that imbalance. Simply put, it takes money out of their pockets.

Why does the US import anything? You could live without any imports just not quite like you do today. If you guys are so patriotic you should buy American no matter the cost.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
gcreekrch said:
Possibly.

Under current situations, the end user in the food chain is reluctant/unable to buy expensive cuts. As we all know, we may not share in profits but we definately share in difficulties.

Can the US feed itself today? I'm not sure.

While increasing supply would have the effect of pressuring prices to the benefit of consumers, that same price pressure chokes revenues to the producers. Thus, coming back full circle, while the trade imbalance with Canada may benefit US consumers, it hurt US producers, which logically explains the concern US producers may have with that imbalance. Simply put, it takes money out of their pockets.

Why does the US import anything? You could live without any imports just not quite like you do today. If you guys are so patriotic you should buy American no matter the cost.

We're trying to take the first step in that process- truthful labeling of the origin of meat products- so the multinationals can't pass off product from Timbuktu or wherever as US product (like it sounds like they are doing in Canada too)...

Consumers can't make a choice- and producers can't promote a product if it is not truthfully labeled or is legally being counterfeited...
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
What we really need is more demand. If there was more demand there would be better prices. If there was more profit there would be more production.. If you go round and around, it still goes way back to Says Law. "Production produces Demand".

We can produce a lot more beef then we do. We can produce more then enough for our domestic needs. There is untilled and untillable land in the farming areas in the US that can graze a lot more cattle then we do in our deserts. Maybe we should build our cities in the desert and farm where they are.

Right now we have CRP land that could suppport cattle and could feed hungry people if that was our desire. Taxpayer money pays to keep it out of production. They could use this money instead to buy beef. But they say beef is bad for your health.

As for the market of the parts we don't usually use: I would rather take the profit from a pound of steak sold in the US then the profit on a pound of tripe sold somewhere else.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Sandhusker said:
While increasing supply would have the effect of pressuring prices to the benefit of consumers, that same price pressure chokes revenues to the producers. Thus, coming back full circle, while the trade imbalance with Canada may benefit US consumers, it hurt US producers, which logically explains the concern US producers may have with that imbalance. Simply put, it takes money out of their pockets.

Why does the US import anything? You could live without any imports just not quite like you do today. If you guys are so patriotic you should buy American no matter the cost.

We're trying to take the first step in that process- truthful labeling of the origin of meat products- so the multinationals can't pass off product from Timbuktu or wherever as US product (like it sounds like they are doing in Canada too)...

Consumers can't make a choice- and producers can't promote a product if it is not truthfully labeled or is legally being counterfeited...

How ,amy times did you tell us your local butcher shop threw the boxes with a Maple Leaf on them out the back door and sold USA beef? :wink:
 

burnt

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why does the US import anything? You could live without any imports just not quite like you do today. If you guys are so patriotic you should buy American no matter the cost.

We're trying to take the first step in that process- truthful labeling of the origin of meat products- so the multinationals can't pass off product from Timbuktu or wherever as US product (like it sounds like they are doing in Canada too)...

Consumers can't make a choice- and producers can't promote a product if it is not truthfully labeled or is legally being counterfeited...

How ,amy times did you tell us your local butcher shop threw the boxes with a Maple Leaf on them out the back door and sold USA beef? :wink:

Hey quit rubbing it in. The only reason he's ticked about it is because he wasn't in on the deal!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why does the US import anything? You could live without any imports just not quite like you do today. If you guys are so patriotic you should buy American no matter the cost.

We're trying to take the first step in that process- truthful labeling of the origin of meat products- so the multinationals can't pass off product from Timbuktu or wherever as US product (like it sounds like they are doing in Canada too)...

Consumers can't make a choice- and producers can't promote a product if it is not truthfully labeled or is legally being counterfeited...

How ,amy times did you tell us your local butcher shop threw the boxes with a Maple Leaf on them out the back door and sold USA beef? :wink:

Yep-- its sad that you have to legislate honesty in marketing and truth in labeling--but as has been shown those are ethics of the past...
Consumers deserve the ability to know where the food they produce originated- and make a choice upon "honest" labeling-not the fraud backed by the multinational corporations and Canadians/Mexicans just so they can profiteer off that fraud..
 

mwj

Well-known member
OT I think I mentioned before that you were just as guilty as the butcher when you said nothing. Actually you were worse since you say you are a spokesman for the American cattle producer.
 

gcreekrch

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
gcreekrch said:
Sandhusker said:
I posed a simple question on the basics on economics. Demand remaining constant, wouldn't less supply equal higher prices?

Possibly.

Under current situations, the end user in the food chain is reluctant/unable to buy expensive cuts. As we all know, we may not share in profits but we definately share in difficulties.

Can the US feed itself today? I'm not sure.

While increasing supply would have the effect of pressuring prices to the benefit of consumers, that same price pressure chokes revenues to the producers. Thus, coming back full circle, while the trade imbalance with Canada may benefit US consumers, it hurt US producers, which logically explains the concern US producers may have with that imbalance. Simply put, it takes money out of their pockets.


That statement explains in complete fullness and honesty why R-CALF claims that the consumer needs and wants M-COOL. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mwj said:
OT I think I mentioned before that you were just as guilty as the butcher when you said nothing. Actually you were worse since you say you are a spokesman for the American cattle producer.

Who said I didn't say anything? I contacted both the corporate (Reynolds and Albertsons) headquarters- and their answer was they sell only USDA inspected meat- and what they were doing was quite legal...And under the fraudulent rules the USDA sat up for the multinationals- they were right..
The friend of mine who was a butcher at one place said he had no say as it was up to the management what they sent him from the beef warehouse (I think in Idaho)...And there were several more producers that I know complained- but apparently it was more profitable to ignore the complaints- and pass off the cheap Canadian beef as US...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Gcreek, "That statement explains in complete fullness and honesty why R-CALF claims that the consumer needs and wants M-COOL. "

http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/COOLonepagerquarkwebversion.pdf

http://archive.supermarketguru.com/page.cfm/2177

http://tacd.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=39&Itemid=

R-CALF claims the consumer wants COOL because it's the truth. I could of provided more links, but this should be enough to prove the point.
 

Latest posts

Top