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

Answer for Econo re packer subsidy question

Help Support Ranchers.net:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
According to our government website, Tyson recieved $32,943,592.81 and the Cargill recieved $8,999,627.38. Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada.

This payment was made on inventory of cattle. Of course the fact that Cargill and Tyson had access to a lucrative boxed beef market for most of this time period had nothing to do with their eligibility.

Kind of makes their 17 million dollar expansion announcement look rather petty hey.

Sorry to bring up old news SH and the packer lover gang. I was asked, and I miraculously supplied proof. I could direct you to the site with all the names if any of you would like. You could even find my name beside my massive cheque that somehow helped me through this crisis :lol: :roll: .
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
rkaiser said:
According to our government website, Tyson recieved $32,943,592.81 and the Cargill recieved $8,999,627.38. Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada.

This payment was made on inventory of cattle. Of course the fact that Cargill and Tyson had access to a lucrative boxed beef market for most of this time period had nothing to do with their eligibility.

Kind of makes their 17 million dollar expansion announcement look rather petty hey.

Sorry to bring up old news SH and the packer lover gang. I was asked, and I miraculously supplied proof. I could direct you to the site with all the names if any of you would like. You could even find my name beside my massive cheque that somehow helped me through this crisis :lol: :roll: .


SH, if you can not dispute these numbers by rkaiser, then you need to apologize for all of your silly posts of packers not willing to be "socialists" and loving the virtues of the free market. ALL of your arguments are arguments of convenience and just plain old propaganda to continue the frauds.

Your credibility is at stake.

MRJ, Jason, please chime in.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
According to our government website, Tyson recieved $32,943,592.81 and the Cargill recieved $8,999,627.38. Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada.

This payment was made on inventory of cattle. Of course the fact that Cargill and Tyson had access to a lucrative boxed beef market for most of this time period had nothing to do with their eligibility.

Kind of makes their 17 million dollar expansion announcement look rather petty hey.

Sorry to bring up old news SH and the packer lover gang. I was asked, and I miraculously supplied proof. I could direct you to the site with all the names if any of you would like. You could even find my name beside my massive cheque that somehow helped me through this crisis :lol: :roll: .

The numbers you produced are old hat and are in the public domain. What is interesting is your use of the phrase; "Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada."

Please provide proof to support your "obvious" claim. If you cannot provide proof then your statement is "obviously" a bit of worthless rhetoric.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
rkaiser said:
According to our government website, Tyson recieved $32,943,592.81 and the Cargill recieved $8,999,627.38. Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada.

This payment was made on inventory of cattle. Of course the fact that Cargill and Tyson had access to a lucrative boxed beef market for most of this time period had nothing to do with their eligibility.

Kind of makes their 17 million dollar expansion announcement look rather petty hey.

Sorry to bring up old news SH and the packer lover gang. I was asked, and I miraculously supplied proof. I could direct you to the site with all the names if any of you would like. You could even find my name beside my massive cheque that somehow helped me through this crisis :lol: :roll: .

The numbers you produced are old hat and are in the public domain. What is interesting is your use of the phrase; "Obviously Cargill has a few numbered companies as no one is going to believe that they own that many less cattle than Tyson in Canada."

Please provide proof to support your "obvious" claim. If you cannot provide proof then your statement is "obviously" a bit of worthless rhetoric.

It still does not belie the point.

It is obvious that your post is diverticuli and your post is "obviously" a bit of worthless rhetoric.

Agman, I am sure your claim that:
On this issue we may just have to agree to disagree. I can assure you though that I have done many times more research per this subject than anyone on this forum.

Comes under the same criticism. It is only Tyson and their backers that claim that the existence of market power means that it will be exercised. I have stated many times that electric utilities do not often excercise this type of abuse and they are the classic definition of market power.

Again, the point is that if ANY of the tenants of Section 202 are broken, then the law has been violated.

Through economic reasoning a REAL economist would realize that the enumerated prohibitions (which have an "OR" between the enumerations:

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

would actually lead to more industry concentration, more barriers to entry to new participants like RobertMac, and less concentration.

The court "obviously" is oblivious to this fact and has a whole host of economists who are not either intelligent enough to realize this is the case or who have somewhere along the way lost their balls and are going along with the current packers who are wielding all the power.

The USDA could have made it easier to see if this was happening if they had made the captive supply contracts for those periods of time subject to manditory reporting. The USDA was not smart enough to push for this information and hides behind a lot of taxpayer funded studies that are a bunch of rubbish. If you don't ask the right questions, you will not get the right answers.

So what is it with you, Agman, are you:

1) Not intelligent enough to ask the right questions,

2) A packer masquerading as a non-invested party

3) A USDA or Land Grant University Professor who does not have any balls?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What is your point this time Kindergarten Economics?

Did Tyson and Cargill receive payments illegally?

If Tyson and Cargill were not eligible for these payments, where is your proof?



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
What is your point this time Kindergarten Economics?

Did Tyson and Cargill receive payments illegally?

If Tyson and Cargill were not eligible for these payments, where is your proof?



~SH~

Illegally? No, but they can not claim "free enterprise" for everyone but themselves. Such socialist hypocrits.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
What is your point this time Kindergarten Economics?

Did Tyson and Cargill receive payments illegally?

If Tyson and Cargill were not eligible for these payments, where is your proof?



~SH~

Illegally? No, but they can not claim "free enterprise" for everyone but themselves. Such socialist hypocrits.

Did they complain about payments to other producers or do you not know that other producers also received payments? Those other producers who took payments are they also socialists? Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance and bias per subject matter. Go back to your little classroom and try to impress yourself and your students.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
What is your point this time Kindergarten Economics?

Did Tyson and Cargill receive payments illegally?

If Tyson and Cargill were not eligible for these payments, where is your proof?



~SH~

Illegally? No, but they can not claim "free enterprise" for everyone but themselves. Such socialist hypocrits.

Did they complain about payments to other producers or do you not know that other producers also received payments? Those other producers who took payments are they also socialists? Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance and bias per subject matter. Go back to your little classroom and try to impress yourself and your students.

Claiming defenses of "free markets" and competition on one hand and a government handout on another is hipocrisy. It is funny how Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for two large, private (Cargill's case) or majority (Tyson) AMERICAN family controlled businesses and you want to claim that is anywhere close to free markets. It is corporatism or fascism.

"Corporatism should more accurately be described as fascism, as it is the merging of corporate and state power". ---Benito Mussolini
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you are arguing that nobody should receive a government subsidy, that argument has merit. If you are arguing that government subsidies, when issued, should not be equally distributed to anyone who qualifies, regardless of size, then your argument is without merit.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
If you are arguing that nobody should receive a government subsidy, that argument has merit. If you are arguing that government subsidies, when issued, should not be equally distributed to anyone who qualifies, regardless of size, then your argument is without merit.


~SH~

If you are arguing a case for free market, then argue it. If you are going to argue a case against a "socialist" policy, then don't be a socialist.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kindergarten: "If you are arguing a case for free market, then argue it. If you are going to argue a case against a "socialist" policy, then don't be a socialist."

I didn't argue for the government subsidies you idiot, I simply stated that if government subsidies are issued they should not discriminate against packing companies.

Chalk up another stupid argument from you.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
Kindergarten: "If you are arguing a case for free market, then argue it. If you are going to argue a case against a "socialist" policy, then don't be a socialist."

I didn't argue for the government subsidies you idiot, I simply stated that if government subsidies are issued they should not discriminate against packing companies.

Chalk up another stupid argument from you.


~SH~

Please, I don't need your opinion of me with your terms "idiot" or "stupid argument".

Read the above post. The law says that packers can not discriminate against the producer. So it is okay for packers to claim "no discrimnation against us" but they can discriminate against producers? Pickett proved that they did to 12 jurors.

The appellate judges had to come up with some excuse, what was it, "legitimate business reason"?

Are you telling me that because Canadian taxpayers can't "discriminate" against wealthy American families they had to pay Cargill and Tyson so many hard earned tax dollars? Sounds like they have the same politicians as we have down here in the USA.

The amount in question was close to the rip-off dollars.

There are almost no defendants that go into a trial claiming a not guilty verdict who don't hold to their claim. Are all of them not guilty?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Geez, A guy can't leave for a day without the whole world falling apart.

Seems that I am still the only one on the site with nothing but useless Rhetoric. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In reply to my comment about Cargill's numbered companies, you are correct Agman, I can't prove they have any, and neither could you if you needed some numbers to back something you might like to.

I gues the point I would like to make is 9 million or 33 million. It's a lot of cash for the part of the industry who still had access to a wholesale beef market in Canada that never really dropped, and an extremely lucrative American boxed beef market that was only lost for a few months.

Jason said a mouthful in one of his posts about the losses Cargill and Lakeside were enduring on the cattle they owned. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Think about that one before you reply Jason. That was one of the best ones I read since I got home.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
rkaiser said:
Geez, A guy can't leave for a day without the whole world falling apart.

Seems that I am still the only one on the site with nothing but useless Rhetoric. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In reply to my comment about Cargill's numbered companies, you are correct Agman, I can't prove they have any, and neither could you if you needed some numbers to back something you might like to.

I gues the point I would like to make is 9 million or 33 million. It's a lot of cash for the part of the industry who still had access to a wholesale beef market in Canada that never really dropped, and an extremely lucrative American boxed beef market that was only lost for a few months.

Jason said a mouthful in one of his posts about the losses Cargill and Lakeside were enduring on the cattle they owned. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Think about that one before you reply Jason. That was one of the best ones I read since I got home.

Unlike you I did not make a baseless claim. That domain belongs to you. It is your obligation to support your statement. In doing so you should either put up or shut up. In short, represent the facts to back your statement or admit you just spewed unsubstantiated rhetoric to display your bias.
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman. :wink:

Can you prove that Cargill has no numbered companies in Canada Agman?

I find it hard to beleive that Cargill owned about 1/4 of the cattle that Tyson owned at the time. They have about the same slaughter capacity.

Is that true?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Packer Bwamer said
I guess the point I would like to make is 9 million or 33 million. It's a lot of cash for the part of the industry who still had access to a wholesale beef market in Canada that never really dropped, and an extremely lucrative American boxed beef market that was only lost for a few months.

I forgot to ad

--------was only lost for a few months -------------when the kill line slooooowwwwweddd suuubbbstttaaannnciiiiialllly. Then the border opened to boxed beef and miraculously the line sped up.
As Agman said "to help the situation in Canada". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
rkaiser said:
Packer Bwamer said
I guess the point I would like to make is 9 million or 33 million. It's a lot of cash for the part of the industry who still had access to a wholesale beef market in Canada that never really dropped, and an extremely lucrative American boxed beef market that was only lost for a few months.

I forgot to ad

--------was only lost for a few months -------------when the kill line slooooowwwwweddd suuubbbstttaaannnciiiiialllly. Then the border opened to boxed beef and miraculously the line sped up. As Agman said "to help the situation in Canada". :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Randy, I'm guessing you meant that sarcastically - because you used the word "miraculously". When the borders closed (not just to the US, but others) would they not have had buyers for the boxed beef? Why would they stay with a full production line if that beef had no where to go?

Or am I misreading your comment?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
When the border closed they had no export markets. They still had Canadian markets which accounted for over 70% of production. This Canadian wholesale market did not fall that much. Slaughter lines slowed, packer owned cattle were killed and price was still pretty good for the cattle sold to retailers.

The boxed beef border to the USA opened less than 4 months after it was slammed closed. This was the beginning of the salmon run. From the moment the border opened to the USA for boxed beef, Cargill and Tyson profitted excessively. They moved their capacity up substancially to take advantage of this opportunity handed to them on a silver platter.

All legal and all basic economics. Who wouldn't have done it if they had the chance. But does that mean we should all turn our backs and let it happen again the next time???????
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
Sorry SSAP, when I said "miraculously" sped up. I was refering to Agman's opinion that the "speeding up" or extra packing capacity was a gift from Cargill and Tyson to the beef industry of Canada.

I say it was a good economic move on their part to simply take everything they could get while the getting was good and easy.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
rkaiser said:
I spewed unsubstantiated bias to stir you up and bring your obvious bias to the forefront once again Agman. :wink:

Can you prove that Cargill has no numbered companies in Canada Agman?
I find it hard to beleive that Cargill owned about 1/4 of the cattle that Tyson owned at the time. They have about the same slaughter capacity.

Is that true?

Again you ask someone else to prove your statements. Your credibility is at stake here Randy not Agmans. You claimed the numbers you prove them!!!!!!! :x

I say it was a good economic move on their part to simply take everything they could get while the getting was good and easy.

Randy can you tell us just what would have happen to the Canadian Beef industry if the packers hadn't ramped up processing? Can cattle stand around for months on feed or is there a prime time for processing those cattle? Just what do you think the backlog of over fat cattle would have been like? Do you think the NCBA would have backed the border openning to live cattle if they had come to Canada and witnessed feedlots filled to the max with over fat cattle? If the packers wouldn't have ramped up once the border openned up to boxed beef. We as producers would have had no support from at least part of the US industry for the reopenning to live cattle because of the fear of what our backlog would have done to them. Thanks to the Packers and their added slaughter capacity we didn't have a backlog, so the NCBA and the USDA didn't have to fear our supply of cattle destroying the US cattle prices like R-CALF claimed they would. But I guess the Packers were just looking out for their pocket books right Randy. :roll:

Tell us Randy if Big C would have been operating would they have ramped up to help clear out the Back log or would they have just kept up the same old pace and not taken advantage of the silver platter handed to them too?
 

Latest posts

Top